Comparisons between r.c.c and steel hopper designs
0 likes•247 views
This document compares reinforced concrete (RCC) and steel designs for hoppers used to store powdered materials. 3D models of both hopper designs were developed and analyzed using STAAD Pro software to calculate loads and stresses. Both structures were designed according to relevant Indian codes. The RCC hopper design had thicker walls (250mm) and required more concrete (37 cubic meters) and rebar (14 tons) than the steel hopper design, which used only 10mm thick steel plates. However, the RCC hopper was found to be more durable and stable, while the steel hopper was easier to relocate. The initial cost of the steel hopper was estimated to be slightly higher than the RCC
![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 editor@iaeme.com
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 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](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/comparisonsbetweenr-150820073844-lva1-app6892/85/Comparisons-between-r-c-c-and-steel-hopper-designs-1-320.jpg)
![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 editor@iaeme.com
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.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/comparisonsbetweenr-150820073844-lva1-app6892/85/Comparisons-between-r-c-c-and-steel-hopper-designs-10-320.jpg)
Comparisons between r.c.c and steel hopper designs
- 1. 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 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
- 2. 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
- 3. 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
- 4. 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]
- 5. 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
- 6. 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 %
- 7. 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
- 8. 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
- 9. 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.
- 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 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.