1. An-Najah National University Faculty of Engineering Civil Engineering Department Terra Santa School Structural Design and Analysis Prepared By: Bara Shawahna Khaled Malhis Nadeem AL-Masri Supervised By : Dr. Mahmud Dwaikat

2. OUTLINE  Introduction & general description of the project  3D modeling  Shear walls design  Design of columns  Design of beams  Slabs design  Foundation design

3. INTRODUCTION  Our Graduation project is the design of a school in Jericho named as Terra Santa School. This school was designed by Al-Diyar Consultant and we will check on their design.  The school consists of three floors with total plan area of (3866.5m 2 ).

4. Scope of work

5.  SAP 2000 program will be used as main analysis tool.  ACI 318-08 for design.  Live loads are taken from ASCE 7 -05 code.  UBC 97 for seismic design. Methodology

6. MATERIALS USED IN THE PROJECT:

7. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS  For each block we chose the following floor system: 1. Block A ( one way ribs slab ) 2. Block B ( one way ribs slab ) 3. Block C ( two way ribs slab ) Blocks A & B. It’s very clear to see that block A, B has a uniform grid for columns with clear path of loading (one-way), therefore, we took the architectural layout for the columns. Ribbed slabs are known for their economic efficiency. The thickness calculation follows the ACI-318 code Block C. Block C has a different shape and dimensions and according to ACI – code requirements the slab should be designed as two-way ribbed slab for economic and deflection requirements. This is because the spans of each panel in Block C have approximately equal lengths.

9. LOADS Dead load :  Own weight for one way slabs = 3.54 kN/m 2.  Own weight for two way slabs = 4.86 kN/m 2.  Super imposed load = 3 kN/m 2. Live load :  for all the class room = 2 KN/m 2.  for corridors = 5 KN/m 2.

10. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN AGAINST SEISMIC LOADS  We will design the seismic load by using SAP2000. Several methods is used in SAP for seismic which is:  Dynamic analysis: 1. Response spectrum. 2. Time history.  Equivalent static force Equivalent static method will be used for comparison [Block A only] and as a cross-check on the results of response spectrum analysis. Because response spectrum is more realistic and covers the modal shapes of the building, we will use it as a main tool for seismic design.

11.  The seismic force effect on the structure can be translated to equivalent lateral force at the base of the structure and then this force will be distributed to the different stories and then to the vertical structural elements (frames and/ or shear walls).  This method is best applied to Regular Structure only.

12. DESIGN FOR EARTHQUAKE BY EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE METHOD (STATIC METHOD) FOR BLOCK A

13. SEISMIC ZONE FACTOR Z From this map the project in Jericho Z = 0.3

14. CV AND CA TABLE Soil type D C V =0.54 Soil type D C a =0.36

15. IMPORTANCE FACTOR TABLE I = 1.25

16. RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR “R” TABLE The overall system is dual system R for building between (4.2-6) =5.6

17. T CALCULATION

19. RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD  We use sap to design and analyze the project the design response spectrum is shown in

20.  We find C A =0.36,C V =0.54 Then we have this curve

22. 3D MODELING STRUCTURE OVERVIEW

23. BLOCK B

24. BLOCK C

25. COMPATIBILITY CHECK

26. EQUILIBRIUM CHECK FOR BLOCK A  Dead load : 1. Slab dead load = area X slab own weight per square meter =1185.84 X 3.54=4136.4 kN 2. Shear wall load = walls volume X concrete weight per volume = 28.7 X0.3 X15 X 25=3288.75 kN 3. Columns dead load = column volume X concrete weight per volume = 30 X 15 X0.4 X 0.4 X 25=1800 kN 4. Beams dead load = beams volume X concrete weight per volume = 3691.4 kN 5. Total dead load = 12917.6 kN 6. Total dead load form SAP = 12956.699 7. % Error = 0.3% which is acceptable

27.  Live load: Structure area X live load per square meter =1185.84 X 5 =5929.2 kN Live load from SAP = 5929.2 kN % Error = 0  Superimposed dead load: Structure area X superimposed load per square meter = 1185.84 X 4.5 = 5336.28 kN Superimposed load from SAP = 5336.2 kN % Error = 0

28. MOMENT EQUILIBRIUM CHECK  We take block A as example to do this check. In this check we take the moment from 3D modeling and find the weight and then comparing it with the hand calculated weight  Moment resulted from dead load in block A in beam B1 is:

30. DESIGN OF SHEAR WALLS

31. DESIGN OF COLUMNS

32. DESIGN OF THE COLUMNS AGAINST SEISMIC LOAD

33.  From SAP2000 and 3D-model we take Pu=8287 and it equal Pn then we go to the interaction diagram and take the steel ratio value= 0.012  Pn/bh=15 =2.15 ksi  ¥=h-2couver/h = 0.9  Mu/bh 2 =1.44 = 0.2 ksi

35. ColumnDimensionMain SteelStirrups C140X40=1600820110/150mm C250X50=25001218310/150mm C385X50=425018310/150mm C4110X50=55002818410/150mm

36. DESIGN OF BEAMS  Beam distribution and categories

38. FOR BEAM B1 AT BLOCK A UNDER SEISMIC LOAD ( 50X35 CM)

40. DESIGN FOR SHEAR

43. SLAB DESIGN  The maximum span length is about 2.7m as shown in Block A,B Map, and therefore the thickness of the slab (assumed one-way ribbed) according to the table will be L /18.5 =15 cm and we used 20 cm for block A& B(S1).

44.  The maximum span length is about 7.55m as shown in Block C Map, and therefore the thickness of the slab two-way ribbed according to the table will be L n /30 =25.1 cm and we used 30 cm.

47. DESIGN FOR TWO WAY RIBBED SLAB IN BLOCK C m11 (x-direction moment)

50. Foundation

53. footing number p servic e p ultimate footing area bldAsAs,min F1120015004.82.2 400843864 F22860372011.443.5 50018621044 F340005227164460022731224 F46200824524.85590025071764

56. DESIGN OF MAT (1)IN BLOCK C Mat 1 plan Mat 1 displacement

57. moment (m11) in x-axis

59. C2 C1

61. THANK YOU