Design of Concrete Basements To EC2 Rev C

Design of Concrete Basements to EC2 9
th
September 2014
1
Price and Myers
Thursday 25
th
September 2014
Design of Concrete Basements
to EC2
Jenny Burridge
Head of Structural Engineering
The Concrete Centre
Agenda
13.30 13.45 Introduction
13.45 15.00 Planning a basement
Waterproofing Strategy
Site Constraints
Ground Movements
Methods of Construction
Specification
15.00 15.15 Break
15.15 16.30 Structural Design
Loading
Calculating crack widths
16.30 17.00 Case Studies and questions
th
September 2014
2
Introduction
Planning a basement
Types & Waterproofing strategy
Site Constraints
Ground movements & Methods of construction
Materials
Structural design
Specification and construction
BS8102
th
September 2014
3
ISE Deep Basements
EN1992-3
th
September 2014
4
CIRIA C660
Concrete Basements
th
September 2014
5
Basement Information Centre
Eurocodes
Withdrawal of BS 8110, BS 8007 etc
Revision to BS 8102
New information:
CIRIA C660
CIRIA C580
ICE Reducing the Risk of Leaking Substructure: A
Clients Guide
Basement Information Centre Basements: Structural
Design
Whats new(ish) in basements
(and water retaining structures)?
th
September 2014
6
PLANNING A BASEMENT
Function
Structure
Space
Planning
Services
Architecture
Waterproofing Geotechnics
Cost and risk
Construction
sequence
th
September 2014
7
Basement design requires:
an holistic approach
an understanding of both the ground and the structural
behaviour
formal consideration of construction methods
Client dislikes a clever solution
if: it increases construction time
if: it increases cost
if: it increases risk or uncertainty
Architects Want:
Dry walls and base With no impact on space planning
Simple shapes Unless its shapes they are defining
Large holes Often at points of maximum in-plane stress
No columns But if you put any in, they will clad them to twice
the size
Narrow beams between holes - To match blockwork
Other disciplines find it hard to understand that in basements beams
between holes act more like columns than simple beams
th
September 2014
8
M&E Engineers want:
Dry walls and base And no impact on space planning
Double storey plant-rooms But only around the building
perimeter where you are trying to prop the walls.
Slim floors So that they can fill the space with ducts, pipes &
trunking
Narrow Beams around holes are OK
Must not project below the floor as they obstruct the ducting, &
must not project above the floor as they obstruct route to raised
floor.
Column-free plant-rooms Odd columns may be allowed, but
they must miss the plant, and therefore never line up with
those on the floor above
Fire Engineers want:
Narrow smoke vent holes Around the full perimeter of the
building
Forced air smoke venting Whilst more costly, does increase
let-able area and makes the structure much simpler.
th
September 2014
9
Contractors want:
Bottom up Construction Simpler
Cantilever walls No props, simpler
No tanking Simpler, & anyway it always leaks somewhere
No constraint on construction sequence
Leaves more options open when things get out of sequence,
He will assert that HIS sequence CANNOT have any affect on the
design forces
Get him on-side ASAP
He can be an ally
10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
5
0
5
10
15
20
Escalator Hole
Applied Load & Reaction Vectors
Slab Edge
Minimum Comp Zone (based on strength)
Arch tie Tension Zone (not Masonry arch)
Spread Comp Zone (CIRIA deep beam)
Lift + Riser
Stair
Tower Crane ??
5
In-Plane Arch Spanning
Courtesy of Arup
th
September 2014
10
1. Establish Clients requirements
2. Site surveys, etc
3. Risk Assessment and water table classification
4. Outline designs, methodology and proposals
5. Detailed design
6. Construction
Outline of the design process
Concrete Basements
BS 8102:2009 Table 2 provides guidance:
Grade of use
Grade 1 Some leakage, some damp.
Parking, Plant rooms
Grade 2 No water penetration or damp patches.
Plant rooms, workshops
Grade 3 Dry environment. Ventilation required.
Residential, Commercial
(Grade 4) (totally dry and vapour proof)
Archives, stores . go to BS 5454
As an aid . .
Waterproofing Strategy
th
September 2014
11
Grades BS 8102:2009
Waterproofing
Types BS 8102:2009
Type A
Barrier protection
Type B
Structurally integral
protection
Type C
Drained protection
Waterproofing
th
September 2014
12
Type A Construction
Materials
Waterproofing membranes and systems:
Category 1 Bonded sheet membranes
Category 2 Cavity drain membranes
Category 3 Bentonite clay active membranes
Category 4 Liquid applied membranes
Category 5 Mastic asphalt membranes
Category 6 Cementitious crystallisation active
systems
Category 7 Proprietary cementitious multi-coat
renders, toppings and coatings
Bonded sheet membranesmodified
bitumen on a range of carrier films
th
September 2014
13
Liquid applied membranesgenerally
applied as a bitumen solution, elastomeric
urethane or modified epoxy
Mastic asphaltapplied in 3 coats as a
hot mastic liquid
th
September 2014
14
Proprietary cementitious multi-coat
Proprietary cementitious multi-coat
th
September 2014
15
Type B Construction
Materials
Concrete
Admixtures
Waterstops
Benign soils:
RC30/37 Cement IIB-V (CEM I + 21%-35% fly ash)
or IIIA (CEM I + 36% - 65% ggbs).
Aggressive soils:
Advise producer of DC Class.
For DC-2: FND-2 (but C25/30)
More aggressive soils: Cement IIIB (CEM I + 66% -
80% ggbs) or IIVB-V (CEM I + 36%-55% fly ash)
Car Parks: C32/40? + provisos
cf C35A: requirements: C28/35 (equiv) -- w/c 0.55, cement 325 CEM I, IIB-V,)
RC30/37: requirements: C30/37 S3 w/c 0.55, cement 300 CEM I, IIA, IIB-S, IIB-V, IIIA, IVB-V B)
Concrete
th
September 2014
16
Cement Specification
Type Addition
Portland cement
replacement, %
CEM I ~ 0 5
IIA
Silica fume 6 10
Fly ash 6 20
IIB-V
Fly ash
21 35
IVB-V 36 55
IIB-S
GGBS
21 35
IIIA 36 65
IIIB 66 80
Admixtures
Its the cracks that matter not (usually) the concrete!
Concrete Society Working Group on Water Proofing admixtures:
no conclusive evidence to support their use (- from a material
scientists point of view).
from data there is some evidence to suggest that they may reduce
drying shrinkage (less permeability) and therefore reduce onset of
cracking and reduce crack widths
Cost and risk:
Traditional: Engineering, workmanship, supervision issues, risk &
possible remedials and upheavals and contractual issues
vs
Admixtures: warranties, supervision & possible remedials and
upheavals but few contractual issues
Whatever: the basement should still be designed properly!
th
September 2014
17
Water Stops
Preformed strips rubber, PVC, black steel
Water-swellable water stops
Cementitious crystalline water stops
Miscellaneous post-construction techniques
(Re) injectable water bars
Rebate and sealant
Photo credits Watermans
Waterbars
th
September 2014
18
Hydrophilic Strips
Photo credit Watermans
Resin Injection
Photo credit Max Frank
th
September 2014
19
Type C construction
Cavity drain
th
September 2014
20
Risk Assessment
Types of water-resisting construction vs risk BS 8102:2009 :
Risk vs Construction Method
Water Level Form of Construction Method of Construction
Low:
generally below
floor level
RC box In open excavation or within
temporary works
Contiguous piling Basement excavated after piling
with the floors acting as props in
the final condition with/without
subsequent concrete facing
Medium to high:
permanently
above lowest
floor level
Secant piling
or sheet piling etc
Diaphragm walling Basement excavated after
diaphragm with the floors acting
as props in the final condition
Forms of construction related to site conditions and use of basement space:
th
September 2014
21
Other subjects
Surveys and ground investigations
Precautions near underground tunnels, sewers & service
mains
Working adjacent to existing structures: Party walls
Tolerance of buildings to damage
Space planning
Integrating basement with the superstructure
Fire safety considerations
Client approval
Planning a Basement
Exploratory Works
NEEDED EARLY - commission early!
desk study
geological maps, borehole records,
ordnance survey, water courses, utilities.
site surveys
boundaries, adjoining buildings and roads,
liaison with adjacent owners
incoming services, tunnels
subsoil investigation
bearing capacity, water level, pile design,
earth pressures, settlements, (modulus of
subgrade reaction) contaminants. See BS EN
1997-2
money well spent!
assess
risk of risk of flooding (EA), likely obstructions,
foundation details of adjoining buildings,
disposal of groundwater
th
September 2014
22
Space planning
Check for:
room for temporary works- clearances for piling rigs. diaphragm
wall equipment takes up considerable space.
restrictions imposed by owners of underground tunnels and utility
companies
dimensions of guide walls for contiguous piles (may be around pile
diameter + 800 mm);,
wall thicknesses : zone for cavity drains if relevant;,
tolerances for piling and temporary works;
capping beams
projecting features of adjoining structures.
superstructure follow through into basement,
Fire means of escape, compartmentation, access
Space Requirements
th
September 2014
23
Vertical load
& relief
Horizontal
load relief
Ground Movements
Ground Movements
Portcullis House:
Observed vertical and
horizontal movements
around the Palace of
Westminster car park
Big
Ben
th
September 2014
24
Open excavation
Bottom up
Top down
Semi-top down
Groundwater
Options for basement walls:
In open excavations: R C walls
Incorporating temporary embedded
retaining walls:
o King post walls
o Steel sheet piling
o Contiguous piled wall
o Secant piled wall
o Diaphragm walls
Facing walls
Temporary works
Construction Methods
Retaining Wall Types
th
September 2014
25
Contiguous Piled Wall
http://www.oasys-software.com
600 mm diam. Rakers every 2 m
Construction methods
th
September 2014
26
Secant Piles
th
September 2014
27
Secant Piles
Facing wall (courtesy GCL Ltd)
Diaphragm Wall
th
September 2014
28
Sheet Piles
http://www.terraingeotech.com/index.html
Propped Excavation
th
September 2014
29
Reality
Top Down Construction
th
September 2014
30
th
September 2014
31
Specification NSCS
th
September 2014
32
Table 1: AREAS AND DIMENSIONS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION.
10 40 Walls
30 500 Slabs with little restraint in any direction
20 250 Slabs with major restraint at one end only
13 100 Slabs with major restraint at both ends
10 100 Water resisting slabs
5 25 Water resisting walls
Maximum
Dimension (m )
Maximum
Area (m
2
) Construction
Unless otherwise agreed
and designed
NSCS Max pour sizes
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
th
September 2014
33
Structural Design
Loads
ULS
SLS
Example
Loads to be considered:
Slabs: column & wall loads, basement slab load, upward water
pressure, heave.
Walls, lateral earth pressure, water pressure, compaction, loads
from superstructure, imbalances.
Design ground water pressure
Normal and maximum levels
Options for basement slabs
Soil-structure interaction
Beams on elastic foundations
FEA
Options for basement walls
Temporary conditions: construction method and sequence
Permanent condition
Construction Sequence
Unplanned loads
Allowances for cantilever retaining systems
Prop failure
Loading
th
September 2014
34
pressure, heave.
FEA
Permanent condition
Unplanned loads
Prop failure
Loading
Horizontal Load Imbalance
Permanent Imbalance
Sloping Site - Soil and pore water imbalance
Adjacent Structures or Basement
Sloping Soil Strata - Varying strength or stiffness
Asymmetrical structure - Varying stiffness
Water one side - River, lake, sea
Superstructure
Surcharge
Permanent & Temporary
Ground-water
Soil &
Pore water
pressure
Surcharge
Permanent & Temporary
Soil &
Pore water
pressure
Ground-water
Temporary Imbalance
Asymmetrical construction sequence
Adjacent Stockpile or batching plant
Asymmetrical De-watering
th
September 2014
35
Horizontal Load Imbalance
Can be taken on:
End wall
Side walls
Base slab (via shear wall)
Load will take the stiffest path
Draw load path
Consider openings
Remember: soil pressures are an order of magnitude
greater than wind loads
pressure, heave.
FEA
Permanent condition
Unplanned loads
Prop failure
Loading
th
September 2014
36
The temporary loads from the construction sequence
will probably have an impact on the permanent design.
For anything other than a very simple basement, the
engineer should assume a construction sequence and
include it in the tender documents.
The contractor should be allowed to deviate from the
assumed construction sequence; but at least everyone
knows what the original assumptions were, and can see
if any change will affect the design of the permanent
works.
Final
Step 3 Step 4
Kings Cross Northern Ticket Hall Construction Design Sequence
(courtesy of Arup)
th
September 2014
37
pressure, heave.
FEA
Permanent condition
Unplanned loads
Prop failure
Loading
Progressive failure check
Required where removal of part of support under an
accidental load case may result in instability.
Can be avoided if the possibility of such accidental
events is adequately mitigated(?)
th
September 2014
38
Consider a 8m x 1m base with 1000 kN loads each end on a
very stiff clay (E
soil
= 150 MPa):
UDL
250kN/m
2
@ SLS
1
6
.
7

m
m

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
Structural design :
Soil-structure interaction:
1000 kN
1000 kN
t = 0.5, 0.7, 0.9
or 1.1 m
Settlement
Calculation of lateral earth pressures
Angle of shearing resistance:
Granular soils:
Estimated peak effective angle of shearing resistance
max
= 30 + A + B + C (A - Angularity, B - Grading, C - N blows)
Clay soils
In the long term,
clays behave as
granular soils
exhibiting friction
and dilation.
Structural design - Loads
th
September 2014
39
Calculation of lateral earth pressures
Surcharge loadings:
Imposed loads: general, highways
UDLs, point loads, strip loads, rectangular loads : Boussinesq
Compaction pressures
Design angle of shearing resistance: tan
d
= tan
k
/
(NB
according to Combinations 1 and 2)

Pressure coefficients
Active pressure at depth z below ground surface
ah
= K
ad

v
+ u
Passive pressure at depth z below ground surface
ph
= K
pd

v
+ u
At rest pressure at depth z below ground surface
ph
= K
0d

v
+ u
Structural design - Loads
= inclination of the
surface to the horizontal
Design for Ultimate Limit State
EQU Equilibrium Limit State
STR & GEO Structural and geotechnical Limit States
Combinations 1 and 2
Structural design - ULS
th
September 2014
40
Structural Design - ULS

F
for ground water
Normal
F
= 1.35
Most unfavourable
F
= 1.20
Structural design
As normal elements
3D nature of design
Design for Serviceability Limit State
Control of cracking
Structural design - SLS
th
September 2014
41
CS TR 67
Short term load strength
Long term load strength
Stress due to early thermal
allowing for creep
Stress due to early
thermal & drying
shrinkage
Stress due to
early thermal &
shrinkage &
seasonal
SLS Design vs time
Test for restraint cracking
A section will crack if:
r
= R
ax

free
= K[([
c
T
1
+
ca
)] R
1
+ ([
c
T
2
R
2
)] +
cd
R
3
] >
ctu
where
K = allowance for creep
= 0.65 when R is calculated using CIRIA C660
= 1.0 when R is calculated using BS EN 1992-3

c
= coefficient of thermal expansion (See CIRIA C660 for values). See Table A6 for typical values
T
1
= difference between the peak temperature of concrete during hydration and ambient
temperature C (See CIRIA C660). Typical values are noted in Table A7

ca
= Autogenous shrinkage strain value for early age (3 days: see Table A9)
R
1
, R
2
,
R
3
= restraint factors. See Section A5.6
For edge restraint from Figure L1 of BS EN 1992-3 for short- and long-term thermal and long-
term drying situations. For base-wall restraint they may be calculated in accordance with
CIRIA C660. Figure L1 may be used with CIRIA C660 methods providing an adjustment for
creep is made (See Figure A2 and note).
For end restraint, where the restraint is truly rigid 1.0 is most often used, for instance in
infill bays. This figure might be overly pessimistic for piled slabs.
T
2
= long-term drop in temperature after concreting, C. T
2
depends on the ambient temperature
during concreting. The recommended values from CIRIA C660 for T
2
are 20C for concrete
cast in the summer and 10C for concrete cast in winter. These figures are based on HA BD
28/87
[60]
based on monthly air temperatures for exposed bridges. Basements are likely to
follow soil temperatures so T
2
= 12C may be considered appropriate at depth.

cd

ctu
=
=
drying shrinkage strain, dependent on ambient RH, cement content and member size (see BS
EN 1992-1-1 Exp. (3.9) or CIRIA C660 or Table A10). CIRIA C660 alludes to 45% RH for internal
conditions and 85% for external conditions.
tensile strain capacity may be obtained from Eurocode 2 or CIRIA C660 for both short term
and long term values
CIRIA C660 Cl 3.2
th
September 2014
42
Test for restraint cracking
A section will crack if:
r
= R
ax

free
= K[([
c
T
1
+
ca
)] R
1
+ ([
c
T
2
R
2
)] +
cd
R
3
] >
ctu
K[([
c
T
1
+
ca
)] R
1
: Autogenous shrinkage short term 3 days
([
c
T
2
R
2
)] +
cd
R
3
] : Thermal shrinkage medium term 28 days
cd
R
3
: Drying shrinkage long term 10,000 days
Easiest to assume it cracks!
Table 1 Values of restraint factor R for a particular pour
configuration
0,8 to 1,0 Infill bays, i.e. rigid restraint
0,2 to 0,4 Suspended slabs
0,3 to 0,4 at base
0,1 to 0,2 at top
Massive pour cast onto existing concrete
0,1 to 0,2 Massive pour cast onto blinding
0,6 to 0,8 at base
0,1 to 0,2 at top
Thin wall cast on to massive concrete base
R Pour configuration
BS EN 1992-3 Annex L
Beware: effects
of creep
included
usually 0.5
Restraint factors
th
September 2014
43
9.5 Minimum reinforcement
A
s,min
= k
c
k A
ct
(f
ct,eff
/f
yk
)
where
k
c
=
=
A coefficient to account for stress distribution.
1.0 for pure tension.
When cracking first occurs the cause is usually early thermal effects and the
whole section is likely to be in tension.
k =
=
A coefficient to account for self-equilibrating stresses
1.0 for thickness h < 300 mm and 0.65 for h > 800 mm (interpolation allowed
for thicknesses between 300 mm and 800 mm).
A
ct
= area of concrete in the tension zone just prior to onset of cracking. A
ct
is
determined from section properties but generally for basement slabs and
walls is most often based on full thickness of the section.
f
ct,eff
== f
ctm
mean tensile strength when cracking may be first expected to occur:
for early thermal effects 3 days
for long-term effects, 28 days (which considered to be a reasonable
approximation).
f
yk
=
=
characteristic yield strength of the reinforcement.
500 MPa
Provision of minimum reinforcement does not guarantee any
specific crack width. It is simply a necessary amount presumed by
models to control cracking; but not necessarily a sufficient amount
to limit actual crack widths.
BS EN 1992-1-1 Exp (7.1)
This gives about 0.58% reinforcement for a C30/37 concrete
Note:
CIRIA C660 - Recent research would suggest that a factor of 0.8 should be applied to
f
ct,eff
in the formula for crack inducing strain due to end restraint. This factor accounts
for long-term loading, in-situ strengths compared with laboratory strengths and the
fact that the concrete will crack at its weakest point. Concrete Society TR59 concludes
that the tensile strength of concrete subjected to sustained tensile stress reduces with
time to 6070% of its instantaneous value.
th
September 2014
44
Tightness Classes
Crack widths and watertightness
BS EN 1992-3 Cl 7.3
Tightness Classes - notes
Crack widths and watertightness
BS EN 1992-3 Cl 7.3
th
September 2014
45
Crack widths and watertightness recommendations (TCC)
Construction
type
a
and water
table
Expected
performance of
structure
Crack width requirement Tight-
ness
Class
w
k
mm
Flexural
w
k,max
Restraint/
axial,w
k,1
A
Structure itself is
not considered
watertight
Design to Tightness class 0 of BS EN 1992-3.
See Table 9.2. Generally 0.3 mm for RC
structure
0 0.30 0.30
e
B high
permanently high
water table
Structure is
almost watertight
See Table 9.2. Generally 0.3 mm for flexural
cracks but 0.2 mm to 0.05 mm for cracks
that pass through the section
1 0.30
b
0.05 to
0.20
(wrt h
d
/h)
B variable
fluctuating water
table
Structure is
almost watertight
See Table 9.2. Generally 0.3 mm for flexural
cracks but 0.2 mm for cracks that pass
through the section
1
c
0.30
b
0.20
B low
d
water table
permanently below
underside of slab
Structure is
watertight under
normal conditions.
Some risk under
exceptional
conditions.
structures
0
c
0.30 0.30
C
Structure itself is
not necessarily
considered
watertight
structure.
Design to Tightness Class 1 may be helpful
for construction type C
0
(1)
c
0.30
(0.3)
0.30
e
(0.05 to 0.20
or 0.20)
Key b Where the section is not fully cracked) the neutral axis depth at SLS should be at least x
min
(where x
min
> max {50 mm
or 0.2 section thickness}) and variations in strain should < than 150 10
6
.
Crack width calculations
Crack width, w
k
= s
r,max

cr
where
s
r,max
= Maximum crack spacing = 3.4c + 0.425 (k
1
k
2
/
p,eff
)

cr
= Crack-inducing strain
= Strain between cracks
= Mean strain in steel mean strain in concrete, (
cs
-
cm
). . . . . .
where
c = nominal cover, c
nom
k
1
= 0.8
(CIRIA C660 suggests 1.14)
k
2
=
=
=
1.0 for tension (e.g. from restraint)
0.5 for bending
(
1
+
2
)/2
1
for combinations of bending and tension
= diameter of the bar in mm.
p,eff
= A
s
/A
c,eff
A
c,eff
for each face is based on {0.5h; 2.5(c + 0.5); (h x)/3} where
h = thickness of section and x = depth to neutral axis.
BS EN 1992-1-1 Exp (7.8)
th
September 2014
46
S0 S0 S0 S0
(
cs
-
cm
). Consider a crack in a section:

sm
-
cm
sm
cm
= 0
sm
cm
= 0
ctu
Strain
Plan (or section)
Strain in reinforcement
Strain in concrete
c
s
c
s
Sr,max
cm

ctu
/2
w
k
= s
r,max

cr
= s
r,max
(
sm
-
cm
)

cr
= Crack-inducing strain = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.7.2 Early age crack-inducing strain

cr
= K[
c
T
1
+
ca
] ]] ] R
1
0.5
ctu
9.7.3 Long term crack-inducing strain

cr
= K[([
c
T
1
+
ca
)] ]] ] R
1
+ ([
c
T
2
R
2
)] ]] ] +
cd
R
3
] 0.5
ctu
9.7.4 End restraint crack-inducing strain

cr
= 0.5
e
k
c
kf
ct,eff
[1 + (1/
e
)] ]] ] /E
s
9.7.5 Flexural (and applied tension) crack-inducing strain

cr
= (
sm

cm
) = [
s
k
t
(f
ct,eff
/
p,eff
) (1 +
e

p,eff
] ]] ] /E
s

cr
0.6 (
s
)/E
s
CIRIA C660 Cl 3.2
BS EN 1992-3 Exp (M.1)
CIRIA C660 Cl 3.2
BS EN 1992-1-1 Exp (7.9)
th
September 2014
47
Crack control without direct calculation
dont do it!
Deflection control
As normal design
Minimising the risk of cracking
Materials use cement replacements, aggregates with low ac, avoid high strength concretes
Construction construct at low temperatures, use GRP or steel formwork, sequential pours
Detailing use small bars at close centres, avoid movement joints, prestress?
Basement example
Slab = 300 mm
Walls = 250 mm
GFS = 250 mm
C30/37
Class R cement
w
k
max = 0.2 mm
Structural design - Example
th
September 2014
48
Basement reinforcement
516 B2
1091 T2
362 T2
656 B2
Middle
strip
H20 @100 T2
(3140 mm
2
/m)
H20 @ 90 B2
(3489mm
2
/m)
631 B2
1360 T2
789 T2
2118 B2
Column
strip
Span# Support#
SLS: Reinforcement
for 0.20 mm crack
width assuming end
restraint
ULS: Reinforcement for
vertical and uplift cases
(mm
2
/m)
A
s,reqd
in slab
# NB Min = 870 mm
2
/m T and B
Characteristic actions on basement wall and
adjacent slabs: LC1 water at ground level
Combination 1
Combination 2
th
September 2014
49
Characteristic actions on basement wall and
adjacent slabs: LC2 no water
Combination 1
Combination 2
Compaction
pressure
Basement wall moment envelope, ULS
G
r
o
u
n
d

w
a
t
e
r
N
o

g
r
o
u
n
d

w
a
t
e
r
th
September 2014
50
Basement wall reinforcement
904
(LT edge restraint)
1130
(LT edge restraint)
466 Inside face
c
nom
= 30 mm
1608
(LT edge restraint)
3140
(LT edge restraint)
466 Outside face
c
nom
= 50 mm
Horizontal (horizontally restrained)
- 725
i.e. min 1450 /2)(
469 Outside face
Bottom
- No change 907 Inside face Middle
- 725
(i.e. min 1450 /2)
469 Outside face Top
Vertical (vertically unrestrained)
CIRIA C660 EC2-1-1, EC2-3 EC7, EC2-1-1 etc.
SLS (0.2 mm crack width) ULS Location
A
s,reqd
(mm
2
/m) wall
Lessons:
Slab
SLS dictates even with uplift
End restraint = lots of reinforcement
Wall - Vertical rebar
Loads and load cases a nightmare but necessary
Minimum steel provides enough moment capacity in
most places
Wall - Horizontal rebar
SLS dictates use CIRIA C660!
Cover critical
Mitigating measures?
th
September 2014
51
Mitigating measures? :
Slab
H20@90B2 H20@125B2 if C25/30, c
nom
= 40 and k
c
= 0.8
H20@90B2 H20@110B2 if h = 250 mm
Wall - Vertical rebar - STET
Wall - Horizontal rebar
EC2-3 H20@100 outside H20@160 if using Class N cement (30% fly
ash or > 35% ggbs)
EC2-3 H20@100 outside H16@125 if using C25/30 and Class N
cement (30% fly ash or >
35% ggbs)
CIRIA C660: H16@125 outside H12@125 if using Class N cement
(30% fly ash or > 35% ggbs)
CIRIA C660: H16@125 outside H12@150 if using C25/30 and Class
N cement (30% fly ash or >
35% ggbs)
CASE STUDIES
th
September 2014
52
Concrete Basements
Case study - institutional
Salient features
4 m deep basement (depth of excavation about 5 m)
Use archives, exhibition and public spaces
Soil gravels
Water table about 1 m below ground level
Propped secant piling to facilitate excavations
Concrete box designed to be inside the secant piles
Vapour barrier membrane sandwiched between the
piles (faced with polystyrene) and the concrete box
Drained cavity inside walls and above floor
By courtesy Clark Smith Partnership
th
September 2014
53
GA
th
September 2014
54
GA &
details:
Temp
works
Sections
th
September 2014
55
Concrete Basements
Pictures!
Concrete Basements
Case study - residential
th
September 2014
56
Concrete Basements
Domestic case study
T
h
a
n
k
s

t
o

C
h
r
i
s

B
u
c
z
k
o
w
s
k
i
th
September 2014
57
th
September 2014
58
Specification:
Figured dims
CDM Regs
Imposed Load
Concrete
Steelwork
Steel Paint
Spec
Welds, bolts
& bolting.
Fab. drawings
Timber
Doubling joists
Masonry
Padstones
Dry pack mortar
Formations
Temp. Works
Extg structure
Drains
Bed joint reinf.
Straps
Ties.
th
September 2014
59
Introduction/background
Planning a basement
Types & Waterproofing strategy
Site Constraints
Ground movements & Methods of
construction
Materials
Structural design
Loads
ULS
SLS
Example
Specification and construction
Case studies
Concrete Basements: Summary
Having done it
once go back and
refine it,
again,
and again preferably in
league with the constructor
Concrete Basements
This guide covers the design and
construction of reinforced concrete
basements and is in accordance with
the Eurocodes.
The aim of the guide is to assist designers of
concrete basements of modest depth, i.e.
not exceeding 10 metres. It will also prove
relevant to designers of other underground
structures. It brings together in one
publication the salient features for the
design and construction of such water-
resisting structures.
The guide has been written for generalist
structural engineers who have a basic
understanding of soil mechanics.
th
September 2014
60
Thank You

Design of Concrete Basements To EC2 Rev C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Concrete Basements To EC2 Rev C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Concrete Basements to EC2 9

according to Combinations 1 and 2)

You might also like