COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

10
Comparisons Between R.C.C and Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp 114 [email protected] 1 Dept. Incharge of Civil Engineering, St. Mary’s Technical Campus, Kolkata 2 Dept. of Civil Engineering, St. Mary’s Technical Campus, Kolkata ABSTRACT In this paper a 3-D model of Hopper has been developed in Staad Pro to analyze the behavior of reinforced concrete & steel Hopper structure under all probable loads. This paper explain briefly also the effect of wind or earthquake loads on the structures for the comparative study between wind and earthquake effects on RCC framed & steel framed Hopper structure. Importance factor of building and finally soil factor were talking into considerations and there effects on the performance of structure were discussed. Our purpose is to analyze & design both the structure & study the effect on foundation & as well as the effect on costing of material for construction purpose. The model has been designed for a capacity of 40 cubic meter Hopper whose bottom part is conical. Keywords: Load calculation & Analysation using STAAD-Pro, Limit State Design Confronting to IS Codal Provisions, Rate of Flow INTRODUCTION Storage is one of the essential and vital stages between the marketing and consumption phases. People have stored powdered materials for thousands of years, at least as far back as man have harvested and stored crops. Prior to the 1960s storage bins were designed largely by guessing. This was all changed by the research of Andrew W. Jenike in the 1960s. His work identified the criteria that affect material flow in storage vessels. [8] Jenike developed the theory and methods to apply the theory, including the equations and measurement of the necessary material properties. The way the hopper is designed affects how much of the stored material can discharge and whether there mixing of solid sizes or dead space that reduces the effective holding capacity of the hopper. These issues and others discussed here are important to consider when designing storage hoppers. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE The main objective of this work is to contribute to the development of design guidance for different R.C.C and steel hoppers considering measures for wind load, seismic load, material load, dead and live load. The design involves load calculations and analyzing the whole structure through Staad Pro in accordance with Limit State Method conforming to Indian standard Code of Practice. COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS Riya Dey 1 , Abhirup Bhattacharjee 2 Volume 6, Issue 6, June (2015), Pp. 114 -123 Article ID: 20320150606012 International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) © IAEME: www.iaeme.com/Ijciet.asp ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print) ISSN 0976 – 6316 (Online) IJCIET © I A E M E

Transcript of COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Page 1: COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Comparisons Between R.C.C and Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp 114 [email protected]

1Dept. Incharge of Civil Engineering, St. Mary’s Technical Campus, Kolkata

2Dept. of Civil Engineering, St. Mary’s Technical Campus, Kolkata

ABSTRACT

In this paper a 3-D model of Hopper has been developed in Staad Pro to analyze the behavior

of reinforced concrete & steel Hopper structure under all probable loads. This paper explain briefly

also the effect of wind or earthquake loads on the structures for the comparative study between wind

and earthquake effects on RCC framed & steel framed Hopper structure. Importance factor of

building and finally soil factor were talking into considerations and there effects on the performance

of structure were discussed. Our purpose is to analyze & design both the structure & study the effect

on foundation & as well as the effect on costing of material for construction purpose. The model has

been designed for a capacity of 40 cubic meter Hopper whose bottom part is conical.

Keywords: Load calculation & Analysation using STAAD-Pro, Limit State Design Confronting to

IS Codal Provisions, Rate of Flow

INTRODUCTION

Storage is one of the essential and vital stages between the marketing and consumption

phases. People have stored powdered materials for thousands of years, at least as far back as man

have harvested and stored crops. Prior to the 1960s storage bins were designed largely by guessing.

This was all changed by the research of Andrew W. Jenike in the 1960s. His work identified the

criteria that affect material flow in storage vessels. [8] Jenike developed the theory and methods to

apply the theory, including the equations and measurement of the necessary material properties. The

way the hopper is designed affects how much of the stored material can discharge and whether there

mixing of solid sizes or dead space that reduces the effective holding capacity of the hopper. These

issues and others discussed here are important to consider when designing storage hoppers.

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

The main objective of this work is to contribute to the development of design guidance for

different R.C.C and steel hoppers considering measures for wind load, seismic load, material load,

dead and live load. The design involves load calculations and analyzing the whole structure through

Staad Pro in accordance with Limit State Method conforming to Indian standard Code of Practice.

COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Riya Dey1, Abhirup Bhattacharjee2

Volume 6, Issue 6, June (2015), Pp. 114 -123 Article ID: 20320150606012

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) © IAEME: www.iaeme.com/Ijciet.asp ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print) ISSN 0976 – 6316 (Online)

IJCIET

© I A E M E

Page 2: COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Comparisons Between R.C.C and Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp 115 [email protected]

The material load is applied on the hopper side wall and the bottom conical portion and to analyze

the loads coming through the walls. Further work can be done on more complicated designs and

come to conclusion as to which is more stable and economic under given conditions.

Classification of Hopper There are two distinctive types of flow of solids in Hopper namely Mass Flow and Expanded

Flow.

There is also a combination of these two flows known as Expanded Flow. Hoppers are

mainly used for protection and storage of powdered materials and designed as such to load and

unload easily. The way the Hopper is designed affects how much of the stored material can discharge

and whether any dead space reduces the capacity of the storage.

Design and Considerations of Hoppers Ratholing (piping), Arching (Doming), Inadequate Irregular Flow, Time Consolidation

(Caking), Segregation is being considered in our work.

The structure of elevated hopper has been calculated taking considerations of wind load, live

load, dead load and seismic load. The R.C.C and the steel frame designs has been designed with

respect to the load analysis result conforming to the latest IS Codal Provisions.

Primary loading and load combination of Hopper The primary loading of Hopper has been done in accordance with Dead load, Live Load,

Wind Load, Material Load and Seismic Load.

The performed Load calculations include:

Dead Load + Live Load + Material Load

Dead Load+ Live Load+ Material load + Wind Load

Dead Load + Live Load + Material Load+ Seismic Load

Dead Load + Wind Load

Dead Load + Seismic Load

A 3D Model For Hopper Analysis

Page 3: COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Comparisons Between R.C.C and Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp 116 [email protected]

Calculation of Dead Load and Live Load

Application of Material Load

Page 4: COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Comparisons Between R.C.C and Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp

A Complete View

nd Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

117

Application Of Wind Load

Application of Seismic Load

A Complete View of 3D Concrete Hopper

nd Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal

[email protected]

Page 5: COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Comparisons Between R.C.C and Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp 118 [email protected]

Maximum Moment Affecting Zone

Maximum Shear Force Affecting Zone

Grade of concrete M 25 Grade of steel fy = fe 500

MOMENT FROM STAAD OUT PUT

HOPPER TOP PART HOPPER BOTTOM PART

VERTICAL HORIZONTAL VERTICAL HORIZONTAL

MOMENT MOMENT MOMENT MOMENT

My Mx My Mx

KN-m/m KN-m/m KN-m/m KN-m/m

5.00 10.00 5.000 10.00

HOPPER TOP PLATE

VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT

Depth of the Raft D = 250 mm

Clear cover d ' = 25 mm Bar diameter = 12 mm

Effective depth d = 219 mm

Page 6: COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Comparisons Between R.C.C and Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp 119 [email protected]

My/bd2 = (5x1000000)/(1000x219^2) = 0.10

Pt = 0.024 Pt provided= 0.200

Ast = (0.2/100)x(1000 x 219) = 438 mm2

Provide 12 Ø @ 125 mm c/c at bottom

Area of steel provided= 904.8 mm2

Provide steel= .41 %

HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT

Bar diameter = 12 mm

Effective depth d = 207 mm

Mx/bd2 = (10x1000000)/(1000x207^2) = 0.23

Pt = 0.054 Pt provided= 0.200

Ast = (0.2/100)x(1000 x 207) = 414 mm2

Provide 12 Ø @ 125 mm c/c at bottom

Area of steel provided= 904.779 mm2

Pt provided= 0.44

HOPPER BOTTOM PLATE

VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT

Depth of the Raft D = 250 mm

Clear cover d ' = 25 mm Bar diameter = 12 mm

Effective depth d = 219 mm

My/bd2 = (5x1000000)/(1000x219^2) = 0.10

Pt = 0.024 Pt provided= 0.200

Ast = (0.2/100)x(1000 x 219) = 438 mm2

Provide 12 Ø @ 125 mm c/c at top

Area of steel provided= 904.8 mm2

HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT

Bar diameter = 12 mm

Effective depth d = 207 mm

Mx/bd2 = (10x1000000)/(1000x207^2) = 0.23

Pt min = 0.054 Pt provided= 0.20

Ast = (0.2/100)x(1000 x 207) = 414 mm2

Provide 12 Ø @ 125 mm c/c at top

Area of steel provided= 904.8 mm2

Check for Shear stress :

Maximum shear stress = τvX = 0.161 N/mm2

Permissible shear stress = τcX = 0.40 ……OK (From SP#16, table-61, for pt=) 0.44

Maximum shear stress = τvY = 0.245 N/mm2

Permissible shear stress = τcY = 0.39 N/mm2 OK

(From SP#16, table-61, for pt=) .41 %

Page 7: COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Comparisons Between R.C.C and Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp 120 [email protected]

Steel Design Hopper

Page 8: COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Comparisons Between R.C.C and Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp 121 [email protected]

Maximum moment Affecting Zone

Maximum Shear force Affecting Zone

A 3D view of Steel Hopper

Page 9: COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Comparisons Between R.C.C and Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp 122 [email protected]

SN No. Description Concrete Structure Steel Structure

1.

Size Of Foundation

2.5*2.5*0.40

Approx. Concrete quantity for

4 FDN – 10.0 Cu.Cm

1.75 X 1.75 X 0.40

APPROX CONCRETE QTY

FOR 4 FDN = 5.0 CUM

2.

Quantity Of Material

TOTAL CONCRETE QTY

= 37 CUM

TOTAL REINF. BAR QTY

= 14.0 TON

TOTAL STEEL QTY

= 17 TON

TOTAL CONCRETE QTY

= 7.5 CUM

3.

Thickness Of Hopper Wall 250 MM 10 MM

4.

Cost Estimate Of Structure 14.50 LAKHS 16.80 LAKHS

5.

Durability MORE DURABLE THAN

STEEL STRUCTURE

LESS DURABLE THAN

CONCRETE STRUCTURE

6.

Repair REPAIR WORK IN EASIER

& CHEAPER

REPAIR WORK IS

COSTLIER

7.

Relocation of Structure RELOCATION IS NOT

POSSIBLE

EASY TO RELOCATE THE

STRUCTURE AS PER

REQUIREMENT

8.

Looks

Detailed Comparison between RCC and Steel Hoppers CONCLUSION

Thickness Of hopper is 250 mm for RCC hopper and it has got more dead weight and

whereas the thickness of steel hopper slab is 10 mm as a matter of which the dead weight is much

less. Overall expense is higher in steel hopper in comparison to RCC Hopper. The RCC hoppers are

more stable and durable. The steel hoppers are easy to relocate, cost effective for long usage and

basically suitable in mining areas.

Page 10: COMPARISONS BETWEEN R.C.C AND STEEL HOPPER DESIGNS

Comparisons Between R.C.C and Steel Hopper Designs, Riya Dey Abhirup Bhattacharjee, Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp 123 [email protected]

REFERENCES 1. Indian standard Codes of [456,1893 Part - II,875,800]

2. AISC 360-05

3. Bridging the rheologyog granular flows Sebastian chivalo, Jin Sun, Sankaran sundareasan

American Pysical Soceity

4. Quantity Estimation Modeling of hr rice plant hopper infestation area on rice stems based on

2D Wavelet packet transform and corner detection algorithm Elsevier Science Publishers

Zhiyan Zhou, Ying Zang , Menglu Yan, Xiwen Luo

5. Near field 3D CFD modeling of over flow Plumes

6. Finite elment Analysis of a Stiffened Steel Silo International Journal of Civil and Structural

Engg. Research.

7. Sohel Ahmed Quadri and Mangulkar Madhuri N, “Investigation of The Critical Direction of

Seismic Force For The Analysis of R.C.C Frames” International Journal of Civil Engineering

& Technology (IJCIET), Volume 5, Issue 6, 2012, pp. 10 - 15, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN

Online: 0976 – 6316.

8. Dr. B. Ramesh Babu, “Neural Network Model For Design of One-Way R.C.C Slabs”

International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 5, Issue 3, 2014,

pp. 71 - 76, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

9. Dr. B. Ramesh Babu, “Neural Network Model For Design of One-Way R.C.C Slabs Using

Ga/Bpn” International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 5, Issue

3, 2014, pp. 100 - 106, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.