QUUG 10-1045 Attch D Roof Structural Analysis Building 311.pdf

Work Request 17198 Structural Analysis and Assessment, Geotechnical Study and Determination of the Presence of Asbestos in the Roof of the Structure of

Shops, Building 311 Architectural-Engineering-Design Services

Moron Air Base. US Air Force.

1. Introduction

2. Description of the Structure

3. Description of the Work Carried Out

3.1. Determining the Presence of Asbestos in the Roof

3.2. Engineering Analysis and Assessment of the Concrete Structure.

Fieldwork

3.2.1. Preliminary Inspection of the Structure

3.2.2. Verification of the Sizes of the Various Structural Elements

3.2.3. Study of the Strength of the Concrete

3.3. Engineering Analysis and Assessment of the Concrete Structure. Office

Work

3.3.1. Study and Diagnosis of the Pathologies Identified

3.3.2. Assessment of the Structure

4. Structural Analysis

4.1. Calculation Bases

4.1.1. Calculation Programmes Used

4.1.2. Codes Taken Into Account

4.1.3. Actions Included in the Calculations

4.1.4. Load Assumptions Considered

4.1.5. Design Situations

4.2. Checks Carried Out

4.2.1. Pillars

4.2.2. Beams

5. Vaulted Roof

5.1. Analysis Performed Using Cype3D

5.1.1. Result for the Vaulted Roof

5.1.2. Stays

5.1.3. Edge Beams. Lines B and D

5.1.4. Pillars. Lines B and D

5.2. Analysis Performed Using ANSYS

5.2.1. Result for the Vaulted Roof

5.2.2. Stays

5.2.3. Edge Beam. Lines B and D

5.2.4. Pillars. Lines B and D

6. Conclusions

Annex 1. Determination of the asbestos content in the roof

Annex 2. Assessment of the Structure. Fieldwork

Annex 3. Structural calculation. CYPECAD

Annex 4. Structural calculation. CYPE 3D

1. Introduction

The work carried out consisted of analysing and assessing the structure of building 311 at

Morón Air Base, in addition to taking samples of and analysing the material used for the roof in order to determine if asbestos is present.

Building 311 houses a bowling alley. It is a single-storey building with a 17.00 x 10.50 metre rectangular floor section and flat roof, where the lobby, spectator area, toilets, boiler room, bar and kitchen are located. The games area has a vaulted roof with 0.18-metre-thick brickwork, which spans a distance of 10.80 metres and has a maximum deflection of 1.75 metres. The floor occupies an 18.6 metre x 30.60 metre rectangular surface area.

In order to carry out the work, we have had access to seven drawings provided by the client, showing:

- THE DIMENSIONS LAYOUT

- THE STRUCTURAL CONCRETE

- THE SECTIONS

- MISCELLANEOUS ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS

- MISCELLANEOUS ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS II

- THE ELEVATIONS

- THE DETAILS OF THE CONCRETE ARCH AND TRUSS

- THE FLOOR PLANS AND DETAILS

- THE DETAILS OF THE ROOF RENOVATION

- THE ROOF RENOVATION PLAN AND SECTION

The drawings are dated April 1957. An initial visual inspection of the building was carried out on the 9th of March 2018 by Antonio J. Molina and Fabrizio Basolo, engineers at AYESA, as well as Victoriano Gonzalez, an engineer at the company Labrvm, these being accompanied by Miguel Trujillo.

Subsequently, during the week of the 16th - 20th of April, fieldwork was carried out for the geological study, data acquisition and structural assessment.

2. Description of the Structure.

The structure is a single-storey reinforced concrete building with a 17.00 x 10.50 metre rectangular floor section and flat roof. It houses the lobby, spectator area, toilets, boiler room, bar and kitchen. The games area has a vaulted roof with 0.18-metre-thick brickwork, which spans a distance of 10.80 metres and has a maximum deflection of 1.75 metres. The floor occupies an 18.6 metre x 30.60 metre rectangular surface area.

The entrance is on the northern side (axis 1) at a height of 90.45, which is the height of the floor located between axes 1 and 2. The floor descends from axis 2 to axis 3, which is located at a height of 90.00. This area between axes 1 and 3 is covered by a concrete waffle slab, cast in-situ. Its top surface is located at a height of 93.55.

The roof slab consists of a ribbed concrete slab, this serving as a continuous structure over two spans, resting on concrete beams and suspended on axes 1, 2 and 3. Both axes A and E have a tie beam. The slab has a thickness of 17 cm and has rectangular ribs measuring 10 cm in width and 37-cm spacing between the centrelines of the beams. The compression layer is 5 cm (in some sections it is 4 cm) and the bands between ribs are lightened with blocks made of double hollow bricks. Therefore, the beams have two continuous spans, each measuring 5.30 metres.

The games area has a vaulted roof with 0.18-metre-thick brickwork, which spans a distance of 10.80 metres and has a maximum deflection of 1.75 metres. The floor occupies an 18.6 metre x 30.60 metre rectangular surface area.

The vault is supported by separate longitudinal beams made from reinforced concrete. This beam mainly serves to absorb the vault's vertical reaction, as there are stays (steel bars which are 25 mm in diameter) every 1.325 metres to compensate for the horizontal force.

These beams transmit the loads to the ground via the 6 pillars they each have. These pillars are rectangular and measure 0.30 x 0.30 metres, apart from those of line 3, which also support the flat roof and measure 0.50 x 0.40 metres. The capping height of the edge beams is 92.594, and the keystone of the vault on its outer side is located at a height of

94.31. On the south side, there is a small annex measuring 2.4 metres wide which is supported by axis 8 and a brick wall.

The drawings of the building are dated April 1957. The characteristics of the materials included in the design, namely concrete with a characteristic strength of 210 kp/cm2 and smooth steel bars with a yield stress of 2400 kp/cm2, are those which were commonly used when the building was built. The drawings show that pillars B4 and D4 are made using concrete with a characteristic strength of 281 kg/cm2. However, these pillars are apparently similar to the other pillars that support the roof. This is likely to be a mistake, because pillars B3 and D3 are larger as they support a beam spanning 11 metres, which supports the flat roof and part of the weight of the vault. However, these pillars are not used a lot due to their size.

3. Description of the Work Carried Out

3.1. Determining the Presence of Asbestos in the Roof.

Annex 1 includes the report drafted by the company in charge of the analysis.

Eight samples were taken from building 311:

Five samples were taken from the roof of the vault:

- Sample M1 from the asphalt sheet

- Sample M2 from the mortar

- Sample M3 from the thermal insulation

- Sample M4 from the bituminous primer

- Sample M5 from the roof tiles

Four samples were taken from the flat roof:

- Sample M6 from the asphalt sheet

- Sample M7 from the thermal insulation

- Sample M8 from the mortar

- Sample M9 from the bituminous primer

Based on the qualitative analysis of the samples, it was concluded that there is no asbestos present. Tests were also carried out to determine the potential presence of asbestos fibres in the air in each of the buildings, but all values were under the limit of detection.

3.2. Engineering Analysis and Assessment of the Concrete Structure.

Fieldwork.

The analysis and assessment of the concrete structure were done in two phases. Firstly, fieldwork was carried out so that the team could become more familiar with the state of the structure and its structural characteristics, as well as to obtain the necessary information to carry out further work at the office. The fieldwork carried out is detailed in Annex 2 of this report. A summary of this fieldwork is included below.

3.2.1. Preliminary Inspection of the Structure.

An initial visual inspection of the building was carried out on the 9th of March 2018 by

Antonio J. Molina and Fabrizio Basolo, engineers at AYESA, as well as Victoriano Gonzalez, an engineer at the company Labrvm.

The general appearance of the building’s structure was satisfactory with no pathologies detected in terms of the structural elements which were inspected (pillars, beams and roof slabs). The aim of this report is to assess the state of the concrete structure.

However, the cornice overhang of the edge beams has significant corrosion. The increase in the volume of steel has caused the coating in many areas to peel. Although this alloy provides horizontal rigidity to the beam and can provide better distribution of the horizontal reaction of the vault on the pillars, this was not taken into account in the calculations as it has a very weak reinforcement.

Inside the building there is some humidity and cracks in the ceiling, these having been represented on the drawings.

On the outside, it is clear that the vaulted roof has been repaired using bituminous paint, which is now cracked and aged. The appearance of the structural elements in general is good and no relevant structural pathologies in the concrete structures that were subject to analysis (pillars, beams and roof slab) were identified.

Annex 2 includes the information collected during fieldwork and specifically the photographic report and survey of the cracks detected in the brickwork.

3.2.2. Verification of the Sizes of the Various Structural Elements.

Measurements were taken to ensure that the drawings match the work that was carried out.

Measurements were thus taken with a laser measuring device and a pachometer was used to confirm that the reinforcement bars match the design drawings.

The following elements were analysed:

Section 2-3 of the beam of axis E, section 1-2 of the beam of axis A, section D-E of the beam of axis 2, sections B-D and D-E of the beam of axis 3, section 4-5 of the beam of axis

D and section 7-8 of the beam of axis B, in addition to pillars B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, C1, C2, C8, D4, D5, D6, D7 and D8.

A sampling hole was also made to identify the elements of the slab at three different points.

In sampling hole CF-3, done in an area that does not appear in the design drawings, an additional typology of slab was detected.

In terms of the other sampling holes, the elements match with the information given in the design.

3.2.3. Study of the Strength of the Concrete.

The strength of the concrete can be determined by extracting and applying stress to specimens of concrete until they break, in addition to other non-destructive methods such as a sclerometer. Using the results obtained from the aforementioned test with the specimens, a correlation can be made between the bounce index of the sclerometer and the compressive strength of test specimens in order to determine the compressive strength of the concrete for the various elements being tested.

A sample was taken from pillar D6, the compression test for which gave the following results.

Non-destructive tests were carried out to determine the bounce index.

The value obtained is different from the characteristic strength of 210 kp/cm2 shown in the design, this being high for the period. This difference may be the result of different types of test specimens being used.

In the sample of concrete taken, a carbonation depth of between 0.0 and 0.5cm was determined.

3.3. Engineering Analysis and Assessment of the Concrete Structure. Office

Work.

3.3.1. Study and Diagnosis of the Pathologies Identified.

As we have mentioned above, no relevant pathologies were identified in the structural elements by us or as a result of any unusual behaviour exhibited by these structural elements. The most relevant from a structural point of view was the poor state of the edge of the concrete cornice, due to the corrosion of the reinforcement bars located at the edge, where there is a drip edge. Although this damage does not have any structural impact, it should be repaired.

When carrying out these repairs, the provisions set out in the following codes must be complied with:

- UNE-EN 1504-2: Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures.

Definitions, requirements, quality control and evaluation of conformity. Part 2: Surface protection systems for concrete.

- UNE-EN 1504-3: Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures.

Definitions, requirements, quality control and evaluation of conformity. Part 3: Structural and non-structural repair.

- UNE-EN 1504-9:2004: Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures. Definitions, requirements, quality control and evaluation of conformity. Part 9:

General principles for the use of products and systems.

- UNE-EN 1504-10: Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures. Definitions, requirements, quality control and evaluation of conformity. Part 10:

Site application of products and systems and quality control of the works.

The repair systems are fundamentally made up of:

1) Bonding primer – anti-corrosion primer.

2) Repair mortar.

3) Finish coat/levelling layer

The preparation of the concrete substrate and the reinforcing bars must allow the correct application of the products and systems, complying with the specifications set out in UNE-EN

1504-10 for the selected methods.

The main objective of the preparation of the surface is to allow for the substrate (concrete and/or steel) and the materials that will be applied to perfectly bond with each other. For this purpose, we must:

− Obtain a cohesive substrate, free from loose or poorly bonded particles, laitance, remains of release agents, treating products, old treatments or any substance that would decrease the adhesion of the new treatment to be carried out.

− Achieve an open-pored surface to encourage the joining and adhesion of the different materials.

Depending on the extent of the damage of the concrete, the preparation of the substrate may range from a simple cleaning of to the removal of a considerably thick layer of concrete. Therefore, the greater the damage, the more aggressive the preparation of the surface will be.

Potential damage caused by the treatment of the substrate itself, such as cracks or detached parts must be taken into account. These must be rectified by either getting eliminating them or strengthening the areas in question.

Once prepared, the concrete must be solid and have a minimum tensile strength of 1

N/mm2. It must also be in good conditions, clean and have an open-pored surface (a minimum roughness of 5 mm is recommended) in order to improve the bonding between the old concrete and the material used to carry out the repair.

Generally speaking, the surface of the substrate must first be treated then washed. There are various hand and power treatment methods. The choice of method will depend on the extent/size of the damage (area and depth), the location (accessibility and position) and health and safety issues that would affect workers (for example, in poorly ventilated or unventilated areas, sand-blasting must not be used).

In this case, hand methods may be used such as chipping and brushing.

Chipping consists of striking the surface of the concrete, thus eliminating weak parts. This is done using a hammer and chisel (an electric pneumatic drill may also be used) or a concrete scrabbler. Brushing consists of eliminating a very superficial layer, with a depth of 0.2 mm, using a brush with steel bristles. This method is recommended for the elimination of surface laitance and rust from reinforcing bars, in accordance with preparation grade St 3 in ISO

8501-1:1988. Power methods may also be used given the fact that the repair will be done outdoors.

Once the surface has been treated, a bonding primer and anti-corrosion primer are applied.

For this purpose, a brush, hard roller or paint gun will be used.

The repair mortar may be applied either by hand or by using a spraying device. The repair mortar must be applied while the joining material is fresh, because if it sets before the next product is applied, this could reduce or even compromise the adhesion. If it is applied by hand, this should be done using a float, trowel or small trowel, or by using formwork. When the mortar is applied using a float, trowel or small trowel, it is recommended that an initial thin layer be applied, this measuring 0.5 - 1 mm thick. The layer of the desired thickness may then be applied in order to repair and protect the concrete. The maximum thicknesses given in the product's datasheet must not be surpassed. The surface finish can be done using floats made from wood, expanded polystyrene or a sponge, this being done before the material begins to harden.

The surfaces will then be cured to prevent the formation of cracks due to plastic shrinkage or drying. This is done by applying water to the surfaces, using curing products or by applying plastics or wet hessian cloth.

The compressive strength of the concrete was found to be very uniform, but lower than the value given on the design construction drawings for the building. In the design, pillars B4 and D4 are given as having a greater strength than the other pillars, and yet the tests carried out revealed that their strength is actually similar to that of the other pillars and significantly lower than the values given in the drawings.

The Code for the Design and Implementation of Concrete Construction Work in force in

Spain when the structure was designed and built was drafted in 1939.

In terms of the concrete’s compressive strength, the following dosages and strengths were established:

The following table was also provided to convert the strengths measured using cubic specimens to strengths using cylinder specimens, this being used as a reference for the calculation.

In Article 30, the code states that ‘for the purpose of the safety factor, the breaking load or intrinsic simple compressive strength is considered to be the maximum breaking load obtained from the cylinder specimen, which is double the height of the diameter, or that obtained from cubic specimens, the ratio between the two being 0.75’.

Therefore, if the compressive design strength refers to the cubic specimen, the difference in the values obtained during the tests is not very significant, because 210 x 0.75 = 157.5 kp/cm2. Additionally, it was very common at the time to consider a reduction of 10% in the compressive strength of pillars, due to the poorer installation conditions.

This decrease in the characteristic strength of the concrete does not seem to have an effect on the durability of the elements, at least not on those that are protected. The thickness of concrete that has suffered carbonation barely measures 5 mm and no significant signs of corrosion were observed, apart from on the cornice of the edge beams.

The coatings detailed in the design are the following:

- 40 mm for pillars and beams. Bearing in mind that, for a IIa class exposure, the current code requires a minimum coating of 25 mm to guarantee a service life of

100 years.

- 20 mm for slabs: In this case, these are interior or protected elements, so deducting the thickness of concrete that may have suffered carbonation, the service life is 50 years according to the current code.

By repairing the defects identified and carrying out appropriate maintenance work, the service life may be prolonged indefinitely. In order to get a more accurate idea of the degree of corrosion, specific tests must be carried out.

For the structural verification of the reinforced concrete elements in the building, the lower strength of 13 N/mm2 will be taken into account.

3.3.2. Assessment of the Structure.

The assessment of an existing building must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines and procedures detailed in Annex D - Structural Assessment of Existing Buildings, included in the Basic Document for Structural Safety (DB-SE) of the Spanish Technical Building Code.

The Spanish Technical Building Code lays out the basic requirements for ‘structural safety’, ‘fire safety’, ‘usage and accessibility safety’, ‘health, safety and environmental protection’, ‘noise protection’ and ‘energy savings and thermal insulation’, these being established in

Article 3 of the Spanish Building Act. The Spanish Technical Building Code also provides procedures to demonstrate compliance with the above with sufficient technical guarantees.

The basic requirements must be complied with, as established by regulations in force, in terms of the design, construction, maintenance and use of the buildings and their installations, as well as in all work carried out on existing buildings.

In the aforementioned annex, the conditions for the structural assessment of existing buildings are given, in accordance with the principles of structural safety analysis for new buildings. It must be remembered that in terms of the structural assessment of existing buildings, there may be a greater degree of variation in safety than for new buildings due to economic, social and environmental factors.

The general criteria established in this annex are applicable for the structural assessment of any type of existing building, as long as it fulfils one of the following conditions:

a) it was designed, calculated and built in accordance with the regulations in force at the time;

b) it was built in accordance with good practices, past experience and accepted professional practices.

Structural safety assessment in terms of fire is outside the scope of Annex D.

Annex D states that the direct application of the rules and regulations established in the

Spanish Technical Building Code for the structural assessment of existing buildings, built based on former regulations and different from those currently used for new buildings, is not appropriate for the following reasons:

- all assessments must be carried out taking into consideration the actual characteristics and conditions of the building (normally not taken into account in calculation rules, which include the uncertainty associated with the process);

- current regulations are usually based on different requirements that are generally stricter than those in force at the time the building was designed. Therefore, many existing buildings are classified as unsafe is they are assessed using current regulations;

- in many cases, a shorter service life may be considered, meaning less strict requirements;

- more detailed analysis models may be used (inspections, tests, on-site measurements or theoretical considerations), which can offer additional benefits.

In cases where the application of the Spanish Technical Building Code is not feasible from a town-planning, technical or economic point of view, or is incompatible with the nature of the work or the building’s level of protection, solutions that allow for the greatest level of effective adaptation may be used, this being done under the responsibility and discretion of the person in charge of the design or, where applicable, the engineer signing the report.

The Spanish Technical Building Code also states that ‘for work on existing buildings, pre-existing conditions relating to basic requirements cannot be diminished, when said conditions are less strict than those established in the basic documents of the Spanish

Technical Building Code, except if different criteria are established. Those that are stricter may only be lowered to the level of requirements detailed in said basic documents.’

‘For all changes to the use of an existing building, the basic requirements of the Spanish

Technical Building Code must be met. When a change in use only affects part of a building or establishment, these requirements must be met in the terms laid out in the Basic

Documents of the Spanish Technical Building Code.’

In Annex D - Structural Assessment of Existing Buildings, the guidelines and procedures for carrying out a structural assessment of an existing building are described.

The basic criteria for assessing the structure are the following:

1) The structural assessment of an existing building shall normally be done by way of quantitatively checking its load-bearing capacity and, where appropriate, its fitness for purpose, taking into account possible deterioration. For this purpose, an assessment may be done in phases, this taking into account the current conditions of the building and each phase being established in accordance with their specific circumstances and conditions, such as availability of the original design, structural damage being observed, the purpose of the building, etc., as well as the objectives of the assessment (D.2.3). In each phase, the accuracy of the assumptions for the assessment shall gradually increase, as well as the level of detail used for the various methods of analysis.

2) In buildings where a quantitative assessment is not possible or feasible, or where a building has shown satisfactory behaviour in the past, a qualitative assessment may be carried out of its load-bearing capacity and fitness for purpose, in accordance with the criteria given in D.6.

3) The assessment process shall be deemed to have been completed when, as part of one of the phases, an unequivocal conclusion is reached on the structural safety of the building or on the measures to be implemented. Where it is not possible to check the load-bearing capacity of a building or its fitness for purpose, the final report must include the necessary recommendations on measures to be implemented.

Section D.6 - Qualitative Assessment of Annex D, lays out the criteria for carrying out the qualitative assessment of the structure:

D.6.1 Load-Bearing capacity

It may be stated that a building which has been calculated and built in accordance with old codes and regulations will have a suitable load-bearing capacity if the following conditions are met:

a) the building has been used for a sufficiently long period of time without damage or anomalies occurring (shift, deformation, cracks, corrosion, etc.);

b) a detailed inspection does not reveal any sign of damage or deterioration;

c) the review of the construction system reveals the adequate transfer of forces, particularly through critical elements;

d) taking into account foreseeable deterioration, as well as the planned maintenance schedule, a suitable durability may be calculated;

e) for a sufficiently long period of time, no changes have occurred which may have increased actions on the building or affected its durability;

f) during the rest of the building’s service life, changes which may increase the actions on the building or significantly affect its durability are not foreseen.

If these conditions are met, the building may be deemed to currently meet the necessary requirements. No specific work is planned; however, a quantitative assessment will be carried out to assess the capacity of the structure and determine whether it complies with current regulations. Obviously, the structure does not have to meet requirements laid out in current regulations in terms of the characteristics of the materials used and design criteria, however, the strength of the most important sections of the pillars, beams and slabs will be checked.

On the basis of the information obtained, the necessary structural analyses were carried out in order to assess the resistance of the structure (these are included in chapters 4 and 5 of this report).

The design stresses and ultimate stresses for the various load assumptions and combinations contained in regulations in force at the time of the design being drafted (in

1957) and current regulations have been obtained.

4. Structural Analysis.

The structural analysis of the building has been done using the programme CYPE and this has been included in Annex 3 and Annex 4 of this report. Below, we have summarised the results and the main resistance checks.

4.1. Calculation Bases.

4.1.1. Calculation Programmes Used.

In order to carry out the building's structural calculations, the programme CYPE was used.

The programme has only been used to obtain the stresses for each assumption and combination. The resistance checks have been done using spreadsheets so the current conditions of the project and the various regulations used may be taken into account.

Two models have been done:

- a general model of the building, done using the programme CYPECAD, this being used to check the concrete structure, mainly in the area of the flat roof (Annex

3); and

- a model of the area which supports the vaulted roof, this having been created using the programme CYPE3D (Annex 4).

In order to confirm the results obtained for the vaulted area, a finite element model has been created using the programme ANSYS.

4.1.2. Codes Taken into Account.

The actions taken into account in the calculations are those contained in the Spanish

Technical Building Code, Basic Structural Safety Document - Actions on Buildings, which are basically the same as those given in the design drawings: live service load of the roof of 1 kN/m2 and 70 mph wind.

In order to check the various structural elements, the following code has been used:

- Code for the Design and Implementation of Concrete Construction Work (1939) and its subsequent version published in the Spanish Revista de Obras Públicas

(Public Works Journal) in 1944.

- Code for the Design and Implementation of Mass and Reinforced Concrete

Construction Work (1968).

- Spanish Structural Concrete Structures Code EHE-08.

The first code from 1939 covers checking the sections of reinforced concrete, monitoring the yield strengths obtained for cracked sections and comparing them with the permissible strain for concrete and steel.

The code included a safety factor of 3 for concrete and a safety factor of 2 for steel

(referring to the yield stress). These values may be reduced by 15% if the combined action of wind, snow, weight, accidents, etc. is considered (the 1939 version includes a reduction of between 10% and 20%). This code did not consider seismic action.

A maximum stress on the steel of 1200 kg/cm2, indicated on the drawings, is consistent with the normal yield strength for steel at the time (2400 kg/cm2) and the aforementioned safety factor of 2.

Subsequent codes, Spanish Concrete Structures Code EH-61 and Spanish Concrete

Structures Code EH-68, included the concept of maximum moment for flexocompression checks of concrete and, therefore, they take into account the plastification of the concrete.

In this case, a 1.1. reduction factor for the yield strength of the steel and a 1.5 reduction factor for the characteristic strength of the concrete (for elements concreted vertically an additional 10% reduction was applied). A load increase factor of 1.5 was established, which could be decreased by 10% when the load of the wind and the variable live load were both taken into account. This value was 1 for seismic situation.

On the design drawing, the compressive strength for the concrete is given as being 210 kg/cm2 and the maximum working stress is given as being 95 kg/cm2. This means a safety factor of 2.21, which appears to be more in line with Spanish Concrete Structures Code EH-

68, in which a load increase factor of 1.5 and a strength reduction factor for the concrete of

1.5, i.e. an overall factor of 1.5 x 1.5 = 2.25, is established.

The current Spanish Structural Concrete Structures Code includes the following factors:

This code does not include load increase factors. In this case, the factors detailed in the

Spanish Technical Building Code shall be applied.

In terms of seismic regulations, the calculations have been carried out following the current code, NCSE-02. This code did not exist in 1954, in fact the first seismic code (PGS-1) was not published until 1968, this including a map showing risk of earthquake and classifying the area of Morón as VII (medium seismicity).

4.1.3. Actions Included in the Calculations.

- Gravitational actions: The concrete's own weight has been taken into consideration, a weight of 25 kN/m3 being used. The weight of the roof slab is

3.6 kN/m2, taking into account the weight of the ceramic elements which lighten the slab and have an apparent density of 15 kN/m3. In terms of the vault, a thickness of 18 cm and an apparent density of 18 kN/m3 have been used.

Moreover, the following dead and service loads have been taken into account.

Floor Uniform live load

(kN/m²)

Dead loads

(kN/m²)

Roof 1.0 0.5

Foundation 0.0 0.0

The live service load corresponds to service category G1 in table 3.1, found in the Spanish Technical Building Code, Basic Structural Safety Document - Actions on Buildings, for roofs accessible only for maintenance and with a pitch of less than 20º.

In this case, the live load caused by snow is only 0.2 kN/m2. Therefore, given that the simultaneity factor is 0.5, it is deemed to be included in the live service load, to which a factor of 1.1 is applied in the checks.

- Action of the wind: As per the Spanish Technical Building Code, Basic Structural

Safety Document - Actions on Buildings. Spanish Technical Building Code. Basic

Structural Safety Document - Actions on Buildings

Wind area: A degree of roughness: II. Flat rural terrain without obstacles

The action of the wind is calculated based on static pressure (R), which acts in the direction perpendicular to the exposed area. The programme automatically calculates this pressure value, in accordance with the criteria of the Spanish

Technical Building Code, Basic Structural Safety Document - Actions on

Buildings, this depending on the geometry of the building, the wind area and the degree of roughness selected, in addition to the height above ground of the point in question:

qe = qb · ce · cp

Where:

qb Is the dynamic pressure of the wind, in accordance with the wind map in Annex

D.

Vb = 26 m/s (area A. Figure D.1.)

Dynamic pressure qb = 0.5 x δ x Vb 2 = 0.4225 kN/m2

Corrective factor (return period) C=1 For 50 years ce Is the exposure factor, which is calculated in accordance with the specifications in Annex D.2 and depends on the degree of roughness of the area and the height above ground of the point in question.

We may observe that the equivalent wind speed is 70 mph, this being given on the design drawings.

cp Is the wind or pressure factor, which has been calculated using table 3.5 in section 3.3.4 and depends on the slenderness of the building on the plane parallel to the wind.

z(m) F Ce C t Ce qb Vw,equiv (m/sg) Vw,equiv (ml/h)

3.55 0.99826 2.184 92.29 38.43 86 z(m) F Ce C t Ce qb Vw,equiv (m/sg) Vw,equiv (ml/h)

4.53 1.03970 2.318 97.94 39.59 89

Wind X Wind Y qb

(kN/m²) slenderness cp (pressure) cp (suction) slenderness cp (pressure) cp (suction)

0.420 0.10 0.70 -0.30 0.21 0.70 -0.30

In direction X:

In direction Y:

A B C D E

Cp -1.2 -0.8 -0.5 0.7 -0.3

Presión -1.18 -0.78 -0.49 0.69 -0.29

A B C D E

Cp -1.2 -0.8 -0.5 0.7 -0.3

Presión -1.18 -0.78 -0.49 0.69 -0.29

On the roof:

Static Pressure

Floor Ce (Exposure factor) Wind X

(kN/m²)

Wind Y

(kN/m²)

Slab 2.18 0.917 0.917

Edge Beam 2.02 0.847 0.847

For the flat roof, the pressure factors are:

For the vaulted roof, these are

F G H I+ I-

Cp -1.8 -1.2 -0.7 0.2 -0.2

Presión -1.76 -1.18 -0.69 0.20 -0.20 b* 1.78 13.85 17.40 17.40 17.40 d* 0.71 0.71 2.84 7.35 7.35

Area 2.52 9.83 49.42 127.89 127.89

Presión media: max -0.13 kN/m2 min -0.40 kN/m2

F G H I+ I-

Cp -1.8 -1.2 -0.7 0.2 -0.2

Presión -1.76 -1.18 -0.69 0.20 -0.20 b* 1.78 7.35 10.90 10.90 10.90 d* 0.71 0.71 2.84 13.85 13.85

Area 2.52 5.22 30.96 150.97 150.97

Presión media: max -0.01 kN/m2 min -0.32 kN/m2

- Seismic action:

As mentioned above, at the time when the structure was designed, in Spain there was no seismic code in Spain and, therefore, taking into account the effects of seismic action on the building when designing it was not compulsory. In 1968, the seismic code PGS-1 was approved.

In order to assess the capacity of the structure to resist the stresses included in current codes, the seismic code NCSE-02 has been used.

Method of calculation: Analysis has been done using a response spectrum

(NCSE-02, 3.6.2).

General seismic data

Description of the Site ab: Basic acceleration (NCSE-02, 2.1 and Annex 1) ab : 0.070 g

K: Contribution factor (NCSE-02, 2.1 and Annex 1) K : 1.10

Type of soil (NCSE-02, 2.4): Type III

Structural System

Ductility (NCSE-02, Table 3.1): Low ductility

: Damping (NCSE-02, Table 3.1) : 5.00 %

Building type (NCSE-02, 2.2): Buildings of normal importance

Calculation Parameters

Number of vibration modes included in the analysis: As per code

Live service load fraction : 0.50

Snow live load fraction : 0.50

Second-order effects have not been analysed.

Reinforcement criteria to be used for ductility: None

Analysis Directions

Seismic action according to X

Seismic action according to Y

A+ A- B C

Cp 0.05 -1.2 -0.86 -0.4

Presión 0.05 -1.18 -0.84 -0.39 b* 26.95 26.95 26.95 26.95 d* 3.00 3.00 6.00 3.00

Area 80.85 80.85 161.70 80.85

Presión media: max -0.51 kN/m2 min -0.81 kN/m2

Plan view of the site

4.1.4. Load Assumptions Considered.

Automatic Own weight

Dead loads

Live load (Service A)

Live load (Service G2)

Earthquake X

Earthquake Y

Wind +X exc.+

Wind +X exc.-

Wind -X exc.+

Wind -X exc.-

Wind +Y exc.+

Wind +Y exc.-

Wind -Y exc.+

Wind -Y exc.-

Additional Reference Description Nature

V 1 Wind 1 Wind

N 1 Snow1 Snow

4.1.5. Design Situations.

For the various design situations, the combinations of actions will be determined in accordance with the following criteria:

- Persistent or transient situations

- With combination factors

- Without combination factors

+ + + Gj kj P k Q1 p1 k1 Qi ai ki j 1 i >1

G P Q Q

+ + Gj kj P k Qi ki j 1 i 1

G P Q

- Seismic situations

- With combination factors

- Without combination factors

- Where:

Gk Permanent action

Pk Prestressing action

Qk Variable action

AE Seismic action:

G Partial safety factor for permanent actions

P Partial safety factor for prestressing action

Q,1 Partial safety factor for main variable action

Q,i Partial safety factor for accompanying variable actions

AE Partial safety factor for seismic action p,1 Partial combination factor for main variable action a,i Partial combination factor for accompanying variable actions

Partial Safety Factors () and Combination Factors ()

For each situation and limit state, the factors to be used will be:

ULS of failure due to breakage of the structure. Concrete: Spanish Structural

Concrete Structures Code EHE-08

Persistent or transient

Partial safety factors () Combination factors ()

Favourable Unfavourable Main (p) Accompanying (a)

Permanent load (G) 1.000 1.350 - -

Live load (Q) 0.000 1.500 1.000 0.000

Wind (Q) 0.000 1.500 1.000 0.600

Seismic Action

Permanent load (G) 1.000 1.000 - -

Live load (Q) 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000

Wind (Q) 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000

Earthquake (E) -1.000 1.000 1.000 0.300(1)

+ + + EGj kj P k A E Qi ai ki

G P A Q

+ + + EGj kj P k A E Qi ki

G P A Q

Notes:

(1) Fraction of the seismic stresses to consider in the orthogonal direction: The stresses obtained from the results of the analysis in each orthogonal direction will be combined with 30% of those from the other.

Displacements

Characteristic

Permanent load (G) 1.000 1.000 - -

Live load (Q) 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Wind (Q) 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Permanent load (G) 1.000 1.000 - -

Live load (Q) 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Wind (Q)

Earthquake (E) -1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000

4.2. Checks Carried Out.

4.2.1. Pillars.

The structure has 25 pillars - 15 square pillars measuring 30 x 30 cm, 8 rectangular pillars measuring 30 x 25 cm and 2 rectangular pillars measuring 50 x 40.

CYPECAD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14

Planos A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 C1 C2

Dimensiones 30x25 30x25 30x25 30x25 30x30 50x40 30x30 30x30 30x30 30x30 30x30 30x30 30x30

CYPECAD 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Planos D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 C8 E1 E2 E3

Dimensiones 30x25 30x30 50x40 30x30 30x30 30x30 30x30 30x30 30x30 30x25 30x25 30x25

Pilares que soportan la cubierta abovedada

Pilares que soportan la cubierta plana

Pilares que soportan ambas cubiertas

30 x 25 cm pillars: These are pillars A1(1), A2(2), A3(3), B1(4), D1(15), E1(24), E2(25) and E3(26). Reinforcement consists of 4 bars measuring 18 mm in diameter and stirrups measuring 6 mm in diameter every 25 cm.

Firstly, the critical section of the pillar was checked, in accordance with provisions detailed in

Spanish Concrete Structures Code EH-39, i.e. a reduction factor of 3 for the strength of the concrete, a reduction factor of 2 for the yield strength of the steel, and no load increase factors were applied.

It may be observed that all load combinations (without considering seismic action) comply with the check detailed in the code from 1939. If seismic combinations are included, the pillars narrowly comply with the check for the same reduction values for the strength of the

DIAGRAMA DE ITERACCIÓN PARA UNA SECCIÓN RECTANGULAR

Datos geométricos de la sección Materiales. Hormigón Materiales. Acero b (m) 0.3 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.25 c 3 c 2

A (m2) 0.075 fcd (N/mm2) 4.33 fy d (N/mm2) 120.00

Iy (m4) 0.000 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 120.00

W (m3) 0.001 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

As1 2 18 5.09 0.19 0.17

As2 2 18 5.09 0.19 0.17

Parámetros de interés

Canto útil armadura de tracción d1 (m) 0.184

Canto útil armadura de compresión d2 (m) 0.066

Deformación correspondiente al límite elástico acero ey d 0.0006

Profundidad de la capa límite xlim (m) 0.16 materials (lower factors could be used for the seismic assumption, although the code does not consider this action).

If we check for compliance with Spanish Concrete Structures Code EH-08, it may be observed that it also complies in terms of increased actions, without considering seismic action.

DIAGRAMA DE ITERACCIÓN PARA UNA SECCIÓN RECTANGULAR

Datos geométricos de la sección Materiales. Hormigón Materiales. Acero b (m) 0.3 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.25 c 3 c 2

A (m2) 0.075 fcd (N/mm2) 4.33 fy d (N/mm2) 120.00

Iy (m4) 0.000 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 120.00

W (m3) 0.001 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

As1 2 18 5.09 0.19 0.17

As2 2 18 5.09 0.19 0.17

Parámetros de interés

Canto útil armadura de tracción d1 (m) 0.184

Canto útil armadura de compresión d2 (m) 0.066

Deformación correspondiente al límite elástico acero ey d 0.0006

Profundidad de la capa límite xlim (m) 0.16

If seismic action is considered as established in code NCSE-02, and bearing in mind that the structure is not ductile, the pillars also comply.

DIAGRAMA DE ITERACCIÓN PARA UNA SECCIÓN RECTANGULAR

Datos geométricos de la sección Materiales. Hormigón Materiales. Acero b (m) 0.3 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.25 c 1.5 c 1.15

A (m2) 0.075 fcd (N/mm2) 8.67 fy d (N/mm2) 208.70

Iy (m4) 0.000 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 208.70

W (m3) 0.001 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

As1 2 18 5.09 0.19 0.17

As2 2 18 5.09 0.19 0.17

Datos geométricos de la sección Materiales. Hormigón Materiales. Acero b (m) 0.3 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.25 c 1.3 c 1

A (m2) 0.075 fcd (N/mm2) 10.00 fy d (N/mm2) 240.00

Iy (m4) 0.000 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 240.00

W (m3) 0.001 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

As1 2 18 5.09 0.19 0.17

As2 2 18 5.09 0.19 0.17

It may thus be concluded that, in terms of flexocompression, the 30 x 25 pillars complied with regulations current at the time when the building was built. In terms of flexocompression, these pillars also comply with current regulations.

30 x 30 cm pillars: These are pillars A1(1), A2(2), A3(3), B1(4), D1(15), E1(24), E2(25) and E3(26). Reinforcement consists of 4 bars measuring 20 mm in diameter and stirrups measuring 6 mm in diameter every 25 cm.

Firstly, the critical section of the pillar was checked, in accordance with provisions detailed in

Spanish Concrete Structures Code EH-39, i.e. a reduction factor of 3 for the strength of the b (m) 0.3 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.3 c 3 c 2

A (m2) 0.09 fcd (N/mm2) 4.33 fy d (N/mm2) 120.00

Iy (m4) 0.001 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 120.00

W (m3) 0.001 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

As1 2 20 6.28 0.19 0.17

As2 2 20 6.28 0.19 0.17

If the seismic combinations are included, maintaining the same reduction factors for the materials (3 for the concrete and 2 for the steel), the pillars do not comply:

b (m) 0.3 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.3 c 3 c 2

A (m2) 0.09 fcd (N/mm2) 4.33 fy d (N/mm2) 120.00

Iy (m4) 0.001 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 120.00

W (m3) 0.001 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

If a reduction factor of 1.5 is applied to the reduction factors, in order to take into account the fact that factors of 3 and 2 include an increase factor for the actions, i.e. applying a factor of 2 to the strength of the concrete and a factor of 1.33 for the steel, the pillars comply with this check.

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

M u

K n m

Nu (kN)

Diagrama de iteracción Pilar 30x30 EH-39 SISMO Building 311

P5

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

P13

P14

P16

P18

P19

P20

P21

P22

P23

DIAGRAMA DE ITERACCIÓN PARA UNA SECCIÓN RECTANGULAR

Datos geométricos de la sección Materiales. Hormigón Materiales. Acero b (m) 0.3 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.3 c 2 c 1.33

A (m2) 0.09 fcd (N/mm2) 6.50 fy d (N/mm2) 180.45

Iy (m4) 0.001 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 180.45

W (m3) 0.001 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

Below, the pillars are checked for combinations without seismic action, using current Spanish

Structural Concrete Structures Code EHE-08.

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

M u

K n m

Nu (kN)

Diagrama de iteracción Pilar 30x30 EH-39 SISMO Building 311

P5

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

P13

P14

P16

P18

P19

P20

P21

P22

P23

DIAGRAMA DE ITERACCIÓN PARA UNA SECCIÓN RECTANGULAR

Datos geométricos de la sección Materiales. Hormigón Materiales. Acero b (m) 0.3 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.3 c 1.5 c 1.15

A (m2) 0.09 fcd (N/mm2) 8.67 fy d (N/mm2) 208.70

Iy (m4) 0.001 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 208.70

W (m3) 0.001 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

For combinations which include seismic action, the 30 x 30 pillars also comply when subjected to the check for flexocompression, this being detailed in current Spanish

Structural Concrete Structures Code EHE-08:

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

M u

K n m

Nu (kN)

Diagrama de iteracción Pilar 30x30 EH-08 Building 311

P5

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

P13

P14

P16

P17

P18

P19

P20

P21

P22

P23

DIAGRAMA DE ITERACCIÓN PARA UNA SECCIÓN RECTANGULAR

Datos geométricos de la sección Materiales. Hormigón Materiales. Acero b (m) 0.3 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.3 c 1.3 c 1

A (m2) 0.09 fcd (N/mm2) 10.00 fy d (N/mm2) 240.00

Iy (m4) 0.001 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 240.00

W (m3) 0.001 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

50 x 40 cm pillars: These are pillars B3(6) and D3(17). Reinforcement consists of

10 bars measuring 0 mm in diameter and 3 stirrups measuring 6 mm in diameter every 25 cm.

Firstly, the critical section of the pillar was checked, in accordance with provisions detailed in

Spanish Concrete Structures Code EH-39, i.e. a reduction factor of 3 for the strength of the

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

M u

K n m

Nu (kN)

Diagrama de iteracción Pilar 30x30 EH-08 SISMO Building 311

P5

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

P13

P14

P16

P18

P19

P20

P21

P22

P23

DIAGRAMA DE ITERACCIÓN PARA UNA SECCIÓN RECTANGULAR

Datos geométricos de la sección Materiales. Hormigón Materiales. Acero b (m) 0.4 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.5 c 3 c 2

A (m2) 0.2 fcd (N/mm2) 4.33 fy d (N/mm2) 120.00

Iy (m4) 0.004 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 120.00

W (m3) 0.004 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

As1 3 30 21.21 0.14 0.11

As2 3 30 21.21 0.14 0.11

The pillars were also checked for combinations which include seismic action, maintaining the same reduction factors for the strength of the materials (3 for concrete and 2 for steel).

b (m) 0.4 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.5 c 3 c 2

A (m2) 0.2 fcd (N/mm2) 4.33 fy d (N/mm2) 120.00

Iy (m4) 0.004 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 120.00

W (m3) 0.004 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

The pillars also comply when the check includes the combinations with seismic actions.

Below, the checks established in current Spanish Structural Concrete Structures Code EHE-

08 are detailed.

b (m) 0.4 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.5 c 1.5 c 1.15

A (m2) 0.2 fcd (N/mm2) 8.67 fy d (N/mm2) 208.70

Iy (m4) 0.004 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 208.70

W (m3) 0.004 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m) b (m) 0.4 fck (N/mm2) 13 fy k (N/mm2) 240 h (m) 0.5 c 1.3 c 1

A (m2) 0.2 fcd (N/mm2) 10.00 fy d (N/mm2) 240.00

Iy (m4) 0.004 Ec (N/mm2) 14300 fy d' (N/mm2) 240.00

W (m3) 0.004 Es (N/mm2) 200000

Recub. (m) 0.057

Armadura n f (mm) A (cm2) Sep1 (m) Sep2 (m)

The pillars show compliance in all checks.

4.2.2. Beams.

The structure has the following beams:

- Beams of axis line 1: 4 continuous 2.70 + 5.55 + 5.55 + 2.70 metre spans. These are given as RB3 + RB1 + RB1 + RB3 on the design.

- Beams of axis line 2: 4 continuous 2.70 + 5.55 + 5.55 + 2.70 metre spans. These are given as RB10 + RB2 + RB2 + RB10 on the design.

- Beams of axis line 2: 3 continuous 2.70 + 11.10 + 2.70 metre spans. These are given as RB5 + RB6 + RB5 on the design.

- Beams of axis lines A and E: 2 continuous 5.00 + 5.00 metre spans. These are given as RB4 + RB4 on the design.

- Beams of axis lines B and D (section 1): 2 continuous 5.00 metre spans. These are given as J4 + J4 on the design.

- Beams of axis lines B and D (section 2): 5 continuous 5.30 metre spans. These are given as RB7 + RB7 + RB7 +RB7 + RB8 on the design.

- Beams of axis line C: 2 continuous 5.00 + 5.00 metre spans. These are given as J5

+ J5 on the design.

- Beams of axis line 8: 2 continuous 5.55 + +5.55 metre spans. These are given as

RB9 + RB9 on the design.

- Slab beams. 2 continuous 5.55 + +5.55 metre spans. J1+J1

The beams and their reinforcement are given in the design as follows:

Beams of axis line 1: 4 continuous 2.70 + 5.55 + 5.55 + 2.70 metre spans. These are given as RB3 + RB1 + RB1 + RB3 on the design.

The summary of results from the calculations in Annex 3 is:

Bending and shear on the main sections are checked for the combinations that do not include seismic action:

Pilar A1 Vano 1 Pilar B1 Vano 2 Pilar C1 Vano 3 Pilar D1 Vano 4 Pilar E1

Sin sismo -1.69 3.80…