Post on 23-Feb-2016
description
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDINGFRP-REINFORCED GLULAM
ROOF STRUCTURE
Silesian University of TechnologyFaculty of Civil EngineeringDepartment of Structural Engineering
ENGINEERING DIPLOMA
author:Agnieszka KNOPPIK
supervisor:PhD SE Marcin GÓRSKI
Aim of project
The aim of project was to design a roof structure of passenger terminal building for Katowice International Airport made of FRP-
reinforced glue-laminated timber frame system taking into consideration operation of
the building under standard operation conditions.
Range of project1. Architectural concept of terminal building2. Design models of roof structure
beam model (simplified) surface model (detailed)
3. Composition of loads and combinations of loads under standard operation conditions
4. Stength & stability analysis of roof structure analytic method (simplified) finate element method (detailed)
5. Spatial stiffening of roof structure6. Constructional drawings of main structure and
structural elements
Requirements
1. Legal requirements• aviation law• building law
2. Technical requirements• complex development of apron and terminal
3. Architectural requirements• functional program
1. Project basis
Passenger terminals1. Terminal 3 at Beijing Capital International
Airport, China• 986,000 m2 of total floor area• 3.5 km long• 5 floors• 50 mln passengers/year • structure – standard steel modules
2. Review of existing structures
2. Teminal at Chek Lap Kok Airport, Hong Kong• 515,000m2 of total floor area• 1.2km long• structure – RC frames, steel vaulted frames, waffle floor
3. New Teminal 2 a Mexico City International Airport, Mexico
• 350,000 m2 of total floor area• RC with masonry filling
Glulam hall structuresarches
trusssolid
domesribbed
net
framescolumn - beam
curved
2. Review of existing structures
Architectureground floor first floor
3. Structural solutions
My architectural concept
Structure B x L = 42.9 x 174.9 m; H ≈ 20 m
Load-bearing structure FRP-reinforced glulam cable-stayed frames every 6 / 9 m.
3. Structural solutions
Static model – beam modelarch elements replaced with sequence 0f straight segments
flexible supports replacing cables
4. Loads
Rough assesment of internal forces distribution.
Dead load
self load of roof covering
self load of structure
installations
roof bracing
case A - max. dead load
4. Loads
case B - min. dead load
Wind load PN-77-B-02011
qk = 550 Pa (account for thrust)
Ce = 1.2 (height-dependent)
β = 1.8 (initial assumption)
4. Loads
Wind load
case C wind from the left
Case E wind from the front
case D wind from the right
4. Loads
Snow load EN 1991-1-3
sk = 0.9 kN/m (zone II)
Ce = 0.8 (windswept topography)
Ct = 0.77 (glass roof covering)
4. Loads
Snow loadcase F
balanced situation
case Gunbalanced situation 1
case Hunbalanced situation 2
4. Loads
Temperature EN 1991-1-5 difference between FRP and
glulam: thermal expansion coefficientsheat transfer
changing cross-sections : different uniform temperature
moisture
Temperature difference
case I - summer ΔT = 200C
case J - winter ΔT = -200C
4. Loads
Combinations of loadsFundamental combination (ULS)
Characteristic combination (SLS)
5. Combinations of loads
always A / B + optionally C / D / E + F / G / H + I / J
dead load wind load snow load temperature
Envelopes of internal forces
Bending moments
Shear forcesNormal forces
5. Combinations of loads
FRP –reinforced glulamMoment curvature model – similar to reinforced concrete linear-elastic-ideal-plastic relationship within
cross-section linear-elastic behaviour of FRP Bernoulli hypothesis applied shear strength of bond between FRP and timber
greater than shear strength of timber along fibres ideally stiff bond, so εw = εf
substitute section method for stiffness evaluation influence of glue on stiffness neglected, Eglue =
Etimber
6. FRP-reinforced glulam
Mechanism of action. Modes of failure
7. ULS analytic
Ultimate Limit States7. ULS analytic
bending with axial tension
bending with axial compression (horizontal elements)
bending with axial compression (vertical elements)
Ultimate Limit Statesstrength condition at bent segments
shear strength
effective geometrical data ecountered
7. ULS analytic
Ultimate moment7. ULS analytic
effective height: h = h0 a c eh = h0 – hp b d f
neutral axis location:hn = hn(hf, E0, Ef, hp) a bhn = hn(hf, E0, Ef, hp, fm, fc) c dhn = hn(hf, E0, Ef, hp, fm, fc, εc) e f
modification factor:kM = kM(hn, hf, E0, Ef) a bkM = kM(hn, hf, hc, E0, Ef)c d e f
ULS control Control sections: bending + compressionControl sections: shear
7. ULS analytic
Static model – surface model8. ULS FEM
Static model – surface model8. ULS FEM
Dynamic wind action. Modal analysis
8. ULS FEM
n = 0.45 β = 1.51n = 1.28 β = 1.41n = 1.34 β = 1.41n = 1.90 β = 1.41n = 2.94 β = 1.42n = 4.07 β = 1.41
assumption
β = 1.8
satisfactory!
Ultimate stress8. ULS FEM
Model 1: High concetration of stresses at the internal supportModel 2. Increased stiffness of cables. Little change in stress distribution
Model 3. No cables. Little change in stress distribution
Model 4. Second column introduced. Satisfactory stress distribution
Ultimate stress8. ULS FEM
Model 5. Scheme
Reinforcement applied:• support area - 3 FRP strips h = 1.8mm, Ef = 300GPa along top fibres• sag area – 1 FRP strip h = 1.4mm, Ef = 300GPa along bottom fibres3 strips σt > 90% ft,0,g,d
2 strips σt > 80% ft,0,g,d
1 strip σt > 70% ft,0,g,d
Serviceability Limit States
instanteneous deflection final deflectionstiffness increase kEI ∙ EIkEI = kEI(hf, hp)
negligible effects of FRP creep
ufin = uinst (1 + kdef)
ufin ≤ ufin,net
9. SLS
Serviceability Limit States9. SLS
Deformation of girder under characteristic combination of loads
Horizontal displacements
Vertical displacements
Serviceability Limit States9. SLS
Control sections
section I-I
uins = 4.1cm kEI = 1.0 ufin = 6.2cm > unet = 5.0cm
section II-II
uins = 12.0cm kEI = 1.1 ufin = 16.0cm > unet = 10.0cm
+ reinforcement in sag area (3 FRP strips h = 1.8mm, Ef = 300GPa)
Serviceability Limit States9. SLS
Horizontal displacements
Vertical displacements
Serviceability Limit States9. SLS
Control sections
section I-I uins = 3.1cm kEI = 1.0 ufin = 4.6cm < unet = 5.0cm
section II-II uins = 8.4cm kEI = 1.25 ufin = 9.9cm < unet = 10.0cm
most unfavourable case A+H
1 strip kEI = 1.10 u1s
= 6.2cm2 strips kEI = 1.19 u2s = 6.7cm3 strips kEI = 1.26 u3s = 7.1cm
Bracings
wind truss bracing located horizontally
between adjacent frames
transfer wind load to foundations
located horizontally between adjacent frames
protect nodes of compressed elements against transverse movement
10. Spatial stiffening
Wind truss• transverse wind truss every 30m• longitudinal wind truss along outer edge of roof• wall truss
10. Spatial stiffening
Roof wind trussesTransverse truss designed for uniformly distributed load q
10. Spatial stiffening
Longitudinal truss designed for slenderness conditions:• compressed elements λ ≤ 250• tensiled elements λ ≤ 350
Wall trusses1. Wall truss being a component of transverse roof
truss designed for internal forces under q load2. Wall truss between external columns designed for
reaction from girder on columns R = 23kN
10. Spatial stiffening
Vertical bracing10. Spatial stiffening
Vertical bracing10. Spatial stiffening
Designed for concentrated load Q
Q = q ∙ a
Bolted joints (steel-to-timber joint)
10. Spatial stiffening
Thickness of steel plate
Required number of screws in joint per element
Number of connectors influences minimum width of connected element!
t = t(d, fuk)
R = R(fh,1,d, t1, d, Myd)
Supports10. Spatial stiffening
Support of girder on RC deck – pivot supportReaction from girder V
clamp stength of rocker/hull and roller
Support of girder on RC deck – column support Reaction from girder V
clamp stength of steel bearing and column
Glued joints10. Spatial stiffening
shear stress
tensile stress across fibres
CONCLUSIONS1. The effect of reinforcement on strength
and stiffness of glued-laminated timber elements
2. Comparison of analytic method and final element method
Articles
Books
9 Polish works 21 foreign works
1.Ajdukiewicz A., Mames J.: Konstrukcje z betonu sprężonego. Polski Cement Sp. z o.o., Kraków (2004)
2.Flaga A.: Inżynieria wiatrowa. Podstawy i zastosowania. Wydawnictwo “Arkady”, Warszawa (2008)
3.Jasieńko J.: Połączenia klejowe i inżynierskie w naprawie, konserwacji i wzmacnianiu zabytkowych kontrukcji drewnianych. Dolnośląskie Wydawnictwo Edukacyjne, Wrocław (2003)
4.Łubiński M., Filipowicz A., Żółtowski W.: Konstrukcje metalowe. Część I: Podstawy projektowania, wydanie 2zm. Wydawnictwo ``Arkady'', Warszawa (2000)
5.Masłowski E., Spiżewska D.: Wzmacnianie konstrukcji budowlanych. Wydawnictwo ``Arkady'', Warszawa (2000)
6.Michniewicz Z.: Konstrucke drewniane. Wydawnictwo “Arkady”, Warszawa (1958)
7.Mielczarek Z.: Nowoczesne konstrukcje w budownictwie ogólnym. Wydawnictwo “Arkady”, Warszawa (2001)
8.Neufert E., Neufert P.: Architect’s data. 3rd edition9.Nożyński W.: Przykłady obliczeń konstrukcji budowlanych z drewna.
Wydanie 2 zm., Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne S.A., Warszawa (1994)
10.Świątecki A., Nita P., Świątecki P.: Lotniska. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Wojsk Lotniczych, Warszawa (1999)
Bibliography
Standards1. PN-77-B-02011 – Obciążenia w obliczeniach statycznych.
Obciążenie wiatrem.2. PN-81/B-03020. Grunty budowlane. Posadowienie bezpośrednie
budowli – Obliczenia statyczne i projektowanie.3. PN-82/B-02402. Ogrzewnictwo – Temperatury ogrzewanych
pomieszczeń w budynkach.4. PN-90-B-03200. Konstrukcje stalowe. Obliczenia statyczne i
projektowanie.5. PN-B-03150:2000. Konstrukcje drewniane – obliczenia statyczne i
projektowanie.6. PN-B-03264:2002. Konstrukcje betonowe, żelbetowe i sprężone –
obliczenia statyczne i projektowanie.7. prEN 1990 – Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design.8. prEN 1991-1-1 – Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1:
General actions -Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings.
9. prEN 1991-1-3 – Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-3: General actions – Snow loads.
10. prEN 1991-1-5 – Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-5: General actions – Thermal actions.
Bibliography
Legal papers1. Convention on International Civil Aviation. 9th edition (2006)2. Konwencja o miedzynaroodowym lotnictwie cywilnym (2002)3. Prawo budowlane. Ustawa z dnia 7 lipca 1994 r.4. Prawo lotnicze. Ustawa z dnia 3 lipca 2002 r.5. Rozporzadzenie Ministra Infrastruktury z dnia 31 sierpnia 1998 r.
w sprawie przepisów techniczno-budowlanych dla lotnisk cywilnych.
6. Rozporzadzenie Ministra Infrastruktury z dnia 12 kwietnia 2002 r. w sprawie warunków technicznych, jakim powinny odpowiadac budynki i ich usytuowanie.
7. Rozporzadzenie Ministra Infrastruktury z dnia 25 czerwca 2003 r. w sprawie warunków, jakie powinny spełniac obiekty budowlane oraz naturalne w otoczeniu lotniska.
8. Rozporzadzenie Ministra Infrastruktury z dnia 30 kwietnia 2004 r. w sprawie klasyfikacji lotnisk i rejestru lotnisk cywilnych.
Bibliography
Web pages
Thank youfor attention
The End