Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract
A continuous intermediate raker beam in the first tier of a football stadium was analysed using elastic
method and designed using Eurocode 2. The raker beam was analysed for permanent and variable
actions due to crowd load and permanent loads only. Due to its inclination, it was subjected to
significant bending, axial, and shear forces. However, design results show that the effect of axial
force was not very significant in the quantity of shear reinforcement required. Asv/Sv ratio of 1.175
(3Y10mm @ 200 c/c) was found to satisfy shear requirements. The greatest quantity of longitudinal
reinforcement was provided at the intermediate support with a reinforcement ratio of 1.3404%. The
provided reinforcement was found adequate to satisfy ultimate and serviceability requirements.
1.0 Introduction
The most common construction concept of sports stadiums today is a composite type where usually precast
concrete terrace units (seating decks) span between inclined (raker) steel or reinforced concrete beams and rest
on each other, thereby forming a grandstand (Karadelis, 2012). The raker beams are usually formed in-situ with
the columns of the structure, or sometimes may be preferably precast depending on site/construction constraints.
This arrangement usually forms the skeletal frame of a stadium structure.
In this paper, a raker beam isolated from a double tiered reinforced concrete grandstand that wraps around a
football pitch has been presented for the purpose of structural analysis and design. A repetitive pattern has been
adopted in the design which utilizes a construction joint of 25mm gap between different frame units. By
estimate, each frame unit is expected to carry a maximum of 3600 spectators, under full working conditions.
With ten different frames units, the stadium capacity is about 35000 after all other reservations have been taken
into account. Each grandstand frame has precast L-shaped seating terrace units that span in between reinforced
concrete raker beams inclined at angles between 20 - 22 with the horizontal. Crowd load and other loads are
transferred from the seating units to the raker beams, which then transfers them to the columns and then to the
foundations. Load from the service areas and concourse areas are also transferred using the same method.
Figure 1.1: 3D skeletal structure of each grandstand frame units (slabs and sitting areas removed)
The three dimensional view of the skeleton of the grandstand is shown in Figure 1.1, while a section
through the grandstand is shown if Figure 1.2. Section through the L-shaped seating unit is shown in
Figure 1.3.
nature of axial forces moving from positive (tensile) to negative (compressive) in the same span of an
inclined member. If the load is however resolved and applied in the local direction of the inclined member, the
axial forces will be absent. A good design will therefore require the use of less shear reinforcement in the axial
compression zone, and more shear reinforcement in the axial tension zone. While the effect of axial forces may
be neglected in horizontal floor beams under axial compression, it may be unsafe to neglect it in inclined beams
because more often than not, some sections are usually under axial tension.
Table 1.1: Values of variable actions on grandstands from BS 6399 and EN 1991
CODE
BS 6399-1:1996
EN 1991-1-1
CATEGORY(DESCRIPTION)
C5 (Areas susceptible to
overcrowding e.g. grandstands)
C5( Areas susceptible to large
crowds, e.g
sports halls including stands)
IMPOSED
LOAD/VARIABLE
ACTION (KN/m2)
5
CONCENTRATED
LOAD (KN)
5.0 7.5 *
3.5 4.5*
3.6
In this design, each L-shaped seating unit is 7m long, which means that the raker beams are spaced at 7m centre
to centre. The crowd loading is supported by the terrace seating units, which is then transferred to the raker
ibeams through the end shears. The raker beams can be analysed as sub-frames or as full 3D structures in order
to get the most realistic behaviour of the structure.
Value
25 KN/m3
5 KN/m2
2 KN/m2
0.85
1.5
Clause 5.6.3 of EC2 limits the depth of the neutral axis to 0.45d for concrete class less than or equal to C50/60.
Therefore for an under reinforced section (ductile);
x = 0.45d ----------------- (3)
Combining equation (1), (2) and (3), we obtain the ultimate moment of resistance (MRd)
MRd = 0.167 2 ---------------------- (4)
Also from the reinforced concrete stress block;
MEd = FSz ------------------ (5)
FS =
1.15
1 ------------------ (6)
Substituting equ (6) into (5) and making 1 the subject of the formular;
1 =
0.87
-------------------- (7)
---------------- (9)
0.87 ( 2 )
0.87
----------------------- (10)
+ 3.2 (
1)
( 0 )
12
1
2
3
2
] if 0 --------------------------- (12)
Where;
L/d is the limiting span/depth ratio
K = Factor to take into account different structural systems
0 = reference reinforcement ratio = 103
= Tension reinforcement ratio to resist moment due to design load
= Compression reinforcement ratio
200
Total load on intermediate raker beams at ultimate limit state in the global direction = 137.94 + 21.917 =
159.857 KN/m
The internal stresses on the intermediate raker beams from the analysis of the frame at ultimate limit
state are shown in Figures 1.7 to 1.9.
Section
Moment
(KN.m)
1967.54
948.078
2283.18
1249.787
1565.63
MA
MABspan
MB
MBCspan
MC
Section
QAB
QBA
QBC
QCB
Shear Force
(KN)
934.62
983.88
999.52
918.98
Section
NAB
NBA
NBC
NCB
Axial Force
(KN)
380.061(C)
339.376(T)
510.767(C)
208.670(T)
948.078 106
0.87
948.078 106
ASmin = 0.26
2
3
fctm
Fyk
= 0.3 35
2
3
= 3.2099 N/mm2
bw d = 0.26
3.2099
460
+ 3.2 (
1)
3
2
] if 0
2450
400 1134
500
310
278.241
( )
12
1
2
0.0059
0.0054
Modification factor =
=
] if > 0
310
+ 3.235 (
0.0059
0.0054
1)
3
2
310
= 278.241 N/mm2
=1.11
Since the span is greater than 7m, allowable span/depth ratio = 31.842
7000
12816
7000
= 1.11 31.842
= 19.374
12816
1134
= 11.301
3083
400 1134
500
( )
12
0.0059
0.00679 0
Modification factor =
310
1
2
] if > 0
+ 0] = 28.066
310
= 299.039 N/mm2
310
299.039
= 1.0366
Since the span is greater than 7m, allowable span/depth ratio = 28.066
7000
12816
28.066
7000
= 1.0366
= 15.89
12816
1134
= 11.301
200
= 1+
200
1134
3
2
1
2
5180
400 1134
= NEd/Ac < 0.2fcd (Where NEd is the axial force at the section, Ac = cross sectional area of the concrete),
fcd = design compressive strength of the concrete.)
=
380.061 103
400 1200
= 0.7917 N/mm2
1
VRd,c = [0.12 1.4199 (100 0.011419 35 )3 + 0.15 0.7917 ]400 1134 = 318111.948 N = 318.11 KN
Since VRd,c < VEd, shear reinforcement is required.
Assume strut angle = 21.8
Let us now investigate the compression capacity of the strut;
v1 = 0.6(1
fcd =
VRd,max =
250
) = 0.6(1
35
250
) = 0.516
0.85 35
1.5
1
400 0.9 1134 0.516 19.833
= [
] 103 = 1440.64 KN > VEd
(cot 21.8 + tan 21.8)
( + tan )
cot = 934620 N
934620
(0.9 1134 0.87 460 cot 21.8)
= 0.9153
= 0.9635
= 0.9789
= 0.9000
References
[1] BS 6399 part 1: 1996: Loading for Building code of practice for dead and imposed loads.
British Standards Institution.
[2] BS 8110 1:1997: Structural use of concrete Part1: Code of practice for design and
construction. British Standard Institutions.
[3] EN 1991-1-1 (2002): General Actions- Densities, self weight, imposed loads for buildings
[4] EN 1992-1-1 (2004): Design of concrete structures: General Rules and rules for building
[5] Jeff Steele, Mark Larsen (1996): Raker-Beam Construction Requires Rugged Steel Forms.
Publication #C960738 The Aberdeen Group
[6] Karadelis J (2009): Concrete Grandstands. Part 1: Experimental investigations. Proceedings
to the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering and Computational mechanics. Volume
162,Issue 1 ISSN 1755-0777
[7] Salyards K.A., Honagan L.M (2005): Evaluation of a finite element model for dynamic
characteristic prediction of stadium facility.