Report Futsal Court Kemasek

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT
CADANGAN PEMBANGUNAN PUSAT KOMERSIL RANTAU PETRONAS YANG MENGANDUNGI 1 UNIT KOMPLEKS MEMBELI-BELAH DAN REKREASI DI ATAS SEBAHAGIAN LOT
6490, DI RANTAU PETRONAS, MUKIM KERTEH, DAERAH KEMAMAN, TERENGGANU DARUL IMAN UNTUK TETUAN : METRO KEMASIK SDN. BHD.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
An incident occurred during the roof construction for Futsal Court on 26 June 2007 at about 4.00
pm. It was reported that the construction workers heard a loud noise as if resembling tearing of
metal plates and disintegration of bolts. It was also noted that a few interior columns especially
facing Main Curve Corridor deflected significantly in outward position especially at column end.
Cracks to column face occurred at the lower region close to the ground/base level. No crushing to
concrete column detected hence cracks occurred in tension face known as tension crack.
At the time of incident, it was recorded that all roof trusses and purlins has been installed while part
of insulation work still in progress. No M & E installation work was carried out (Refer to Figure 1)
FIGURE 1
Orbtech Engineering Corporation Sdn Bhd, (OECSB) contractually as the main contractor, had
suspended the roofing installation work and immediately erected temporary support in the form of
scaffolding assembly upon the directive by Superintending Officer. Hazard tape was installed along
the building perimeter secluding the area from unnecessary personals.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 1 D:\from THUMB-DRIVE(130607)\spmegasb\petronas-tggnu\futsal court\design report kemasek.doc

The roof fabricator and installer for the project is S.P. Mega Sdn. Bhd. (SPMSB). On the other hand
Design Pro Consult Sdn Bhd (DPCSB) was appointed by SPMSB for the jointing design. A joint visit
was conducted on 3rd July 2007 at about 3.00 pm followed by a technical meeting chaired by
KLCCPSB. The outcome from the meeting resulted several remedial work proposals, monitoring
requirements and general review of the jointing design.
Upon the meeting, DPCSB has taken an initiative to provide detail calculation as well as reviewing
the overall incident. The purpose of this report is to outline the initial design approach, detailed
design, failure mode and recommendations based on technical aspect and observation. This report
is prepared with full responsibility and without prejudice.
2.0 WORK SCOPE OF DESIGN PRO CONSULT SDN BHD
In terms of contractual arrangement, OECSB appointed SPMSB as the roof fabricator and installer.
The contract require design proposal and endorsement from Professional Engineer appointed by
SPMSB for the jointing adhering to the roof truss design prepared by MECIP (M) Sdn Bhd. (MECIP).
DPCSB was given a set of construction drawing showing the required roof truss numbers,
dimensions, profile, support locations, purlin arrangement and roofing materials.
As such, the workscope for DPCSB mainly is to verify the joint details at main spine - column, truss
- beam and splice connections as proposed in the construction drawings upon finalization of
fabricators shop drawing. DPCSB made a comprehensive comparison between the proposed
connection details and the new connection details (if any) and shall be discussed further in Section
5 of this report.
Technically, the jointing design will show the joint locations, number of bolts required, bolts sizes,
arrangement, grade, embedded/anchored length, connecting plate details (sizes, thickness and
material grade) as well as splice plate details. In principle, this exercise shall not cover structural
beam and column design both under ultimate limit and serviceability. It is assumed that these
structures have been adequately designed and detailed.

3.0 FUTSAL COURT TRUSS DESIGN DATA

From the construction drawings provided, the following data were extracted and used as a basis for
jointing design.
Steel Structures
Main spine members 406.4 mm x 7.9 mm x 77.6 kg/m CHS
Top chord members 140 mm x 5.0 mm x 16.6 kg/m CHS
Internal members for the triangulated form 114 mm x 3.6 mm x 16.6 kg/m CHS
Curved angle approximately 8.5 degree
Steel selfweight 77 kN/m3
Steel Grade 43A/S275
Bolt Grade 8.8
Roofing dead load 0.06 kN/m2
Insulation and purlin 0.06 kN/m2
M & E services 0.25 kN/m2
Live load 0.25 kN/m2
Wind load (uplift) 0.25 kN/m2
These data shall be used in deriving internal forces, determining the splice joint requirement,
connecting plate and bolts.
Concrete Structures
Column size 400 mm x 400 mm
Beam size (receiving end) 450 mm x 1400 mm
Concrete Grade 30 N/mm2 at 28 days
These data shall be used for designing main spine column connection.

4.0 CHANGES MADE TO THE ROOF TRUSS

Generally the truss assembly consists of a single member main spine (or bottom chord), two
parallel members as top chord and a three piece triangulated internal members. There are Four (4)
splice plates and Two (2) end connections between main spine and column. (Refer Figure 2) . Two
(2) stages of design calculation and shop drawing were produced and submitted for approval due to
changes informed by SPMSB.
FIGURE 2
Stage 1
At this stage, the connection design, details and shop drawings were produced based on the
following roof truss data :
Roof span 40.4 meter
Bottom chord profile straight
Truss members generally adopting RHS assemblage

The design was performed conservatively treating the overall arrangement (in a lattice form) as a
single member. This exercise however shall is null and void as the second stage design supersede.
Stage 2
At this stage several changes were incorporated as listed :
Roof span 60.4 meter
Bottom chord profile curve at approximately 8.5 degree
Truss members generally adopting CHS assemblage
The design was again performed conservatively treating the overall arrangement (in a triangulated
form) as a single member. It was noted that curved roof structures exhibit horizontal force compared
to straight profile. However, this horizontal force is not significant in the case of compression bolting
connection with the presence of connecting plate that will distribute the force into surface pressure
to the column and localized effect shall be checked. This horizontal force however may be
significant to the structural column as it act as a concentrated load pushing the column outward.
The deflection of receiving columns is beyond the work scope in this exercise.
A design proposal was submitted together with the construction drawing for approval as shown in
Appendix A and Appendix B.

5.0 COMPARISON BETWEEN SHOP DRAWINGS AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS

As mentioned earlier, DPCSB performed a comparison exercise between shop drawings produced
by SPMSB and construction drawings. This exercise acts as a benchmark and safeguards any new
changes pertaining to the details. The summary of this comparison is shown in Table 1.
COMPARISON BETWEEN SHOP DRAWINGS AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS

Element
Shop Drawings
Construction Drawings
Main spine
406.4 x 7.9 x 77.6 kg/m CHS
406 x 6.3 CHS
Top chord
140 x 5.0 x 16.6 kg/m CHS
139 x 3.2 CHS
Internal
114 x 3.6 x 9.83 kg/m CHS
114 x 3.2 CHS
Bolt @ Main spine column
6 Nos M24 grade 8.8
6 Nos M20 grade 8.8
Intermediate Bolt column
4 Nos x 2 M24 grade 8.8
Top Bolt beam
Plate Splice 1 *
12 mm thk (500 x 600)
Details not indicated
Plate Splice 2 *
12 mm thk (280 x 280)
6 mm thk (150 x 150)
Table 1 : Comparison Between Shop Drawings and Construction Drawings
Note *
i) Splice 1 at main spine
ii) Splice 2 at top chord
The reason behind these differences can be summarized based on the following :
Availability of materials different suppliers may stock slightly different

specifications of structural steel.
Design requirements as per DPCSB calculation
Detailing a classical case for Plate - Splice 2 where a 150 x 150 mm splice plate
will not hold a 139 mm CHS in place as no space available to secure the bolts.
It is clearly observed that DPCSB proposal in the shop drawings exhibit a safer approach in all
technical aspects. As for the intermediate bolts, although 4 Nos of bolts being used (compared to 5
bolts) but it was compensated with larger bolt diameter and additional 2 top bolts. In addition, these
changes are necessary due to the assembly of roof trusses at the receiving end.

6.0 MODE OF FAILURE

The study pertaining to the mode of failure may help in understanding the possible failure
mechanism and able to provide solutions upon identifying the main cause. Damaged to structural
components observed at site is shown in Table 2 :-
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
DAMAGED TO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Structural component
Damage observed
Roof truss members - general
No buckling observed
Main spine splice plate connection
Tearing of splice plate and disintegration of
bolts connections in tension manner and prying
action (Refer Figure 3)
Main spine to column connections
Slight distortion of connecting plate,
disintegration of bolts connection (large
reduction in bond strength between concrete
and bolt), bolts moving inward indicating
tension failure, no prying failure observed.
Receiving columns top
Deflected outward indicating presence of
significant lateral force parallel to the bending
plane.
Column general
Deflection mode exhibit an almost double
curvature shape with point of contraflexure at
column (Refer Figure 4)
Column bottom
Deflected inward with significant sign of distress
(structural cracks) in tension manner. Cracks
may still in active mode (Refer Figure 5)
Table 2 : Damaged to Structural Components
Based on this observation, THREE (3) failure modes can be concluded :
Connection failure with tearing of splice plates and resulting the top column to
deflect outward
Connection failure at main spine column connection due to internal force resulting
the column to deflect outward
Excessive deflection of column due to external force (lateral) resulting the failure in
main spine column connection

FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5
The possible load path :Load path analysis will indicate the load movement/transfer in a full structure. This may also indicate
the occurrence of either local or global failure due to internal or external factor.
Roofing
Truss (design to identify adequate member sizes) Connection (design to satisfy
bolting requirement based on internal forces) Support reaction (design for end connection bolt,
connecting plate, column face concrete compressive stress based on lateral force and shear for
pinned connection)
Column (check under serviceability requirement to provide adequate
stiffness)
Case 1 : Splice Plate Failure

Splice plate failure occur due to the dislocation/yielding of bolts in tension manner, shearing and
prying action (if any). Splice in compression is very unlikely to fail except for shear failure. This type
of failure is considered localized (may occur at only one location). Where splice failure occurred :-

connected members will give way
adjacent members will experience additional forces
effective length of associated members increase
reversible of member internal forces (compression to tension vice versa)
reversible of support reactions (compression to tension)
and the whole truss may collapsed progressively downward and column will pulled
inward.
It is very unlikely for a splice plate at failure to transfer internal forces to the support as the load path
is no longer exist. As observed, the critical columns deflect outward due to a significant lateral force.
In this case splice failure shall not be the principle cause initiating the overall failure. The detail
design of splice connection is discussed in section 7 of this report.
Case 2 : Main Spine Column Connection Failure
The lateral force exerted to the column face is in the form of compressive stress via the presence of
connecting plate. In this case, bolts shall be designed to resist shear and limit in compressive stress
at column face must be checked. This is analogous to steel column concrete base connection
where the presence of steel base plate distribute column axial force to compressive stress of
column. Bolts in compression region is not critical compared to the tension face.
If main spine column connection fail in compression manner :
the column surface will show sign of distress in the form of concrete crushing
bolts that are initially embedded in the column will be highly compressed and shall
punch deeper into the column due to end bearing failure (for 24 mm diameter bolt, a
minimum force of 13 kN/bolt is sufficient to cause this penetration, taking full
concrete compression strength of 30 N/mm2)
As observed at site, the bolts are being pulled outward (inward of Futsal Court) from its original
position in tension manner instead of compression. This type of failure is also localized and shall not

force the column to deflect outward as the load path is disconnected. This type of failure shall
results in catastrophic failure to the whole truss system. The detailed structural calculations for bolts
in compression region is discussed in Section 7 of this report.
Case 3 : Excessive Deflection of Column due to External Lateral Force

A curved truss profile shall exert lateral force and the magnitude is greatly influence by the curve
angle. Analogous to any foundation system of a building, the receiving column act as a
support/foundation to the truss system. Obviously, failure to a support will immediately propagate to
associated structures/components supported by the system. In other words column failure is not
necessarily localized. This statement also agrees with the load path considered.
Deflection check falls under the serviceability requirement where excessive deflection must be
avoided. As observed at site, the top column deflects outward and must be parallel with the external
force exerted to it. If the column stiffness is insufficient, excessive deflection may occur and
moment induced by this lateral force is greatly magnified especially at base/bottom due to lengthy
lever arm coupled with slenderness effect. The presence of structural cracks at the bottom part
confirmed this argument.
The bolts at main spine column connection found to be dislocated outward. This is likely due to
the reversible effect where bolts initially designed in compression region experiencing tension force.
Tension and compression connection differ by significant margin. In tension region :
the integrity of the connection is greatly depending on the bond stress between the
bolt and concrete interface. Maximum bond stress value of 5.0 N/mm2 and 250 mm
embedded length can only take approximately 94 kN tension force per bolt.
end bearing contribution is not available
no contribution from the presence of connecting plate. Dispersion of tension force is

not form of pressure (as in compression region) but rather distributed almost
directly to every bolts.

If the tension force/bolt or bolt is group is not handle properly than the reversible effect at main spine
column connection as well as splice connection is significant enough to cause the whole system
to disintegrate.
7.0 DETAILED DESIGN CONFORMING TO SUBMITTED CALCULATIONS

As mentioned earlier, the original design proposal adopted a conservative approach. As instructed, a
re-check was performed as to satisfy all the technical issues. A commonly known engineering
design software, STAAD III shall be used as a tool to model the roof truss extracting all internal
forces and support reactions. Manual design was performed in accordance to BS 5950. Truss
model and associated results are shown in Appendix C

Part of Structure : Truss T1 Futsal Court

Subject : Main Spine to Column Connection - End Plate Connection (PL-1)
References
Calculation
Analysis Results due to Factored Load from STAAD III ouput in
Appendix C
Compressive Force, Fx = 990 kN
Shear Force, Fy = 182 kN
Design by : Mahadhir
Checked by : Ir. Alwi
Date : 29 July 2007
Sheet 1/2
Result/Output
End Plate Connection Design

Proposed Components :
Using a 600 x 500 x 20mm thk. M.S. plate (PL-1)
6 Nos. M24 grade 8.8 bolts with 28mm dia. holes
Clause 4.13.1
End Plate Design

Limit of compressive stress or bearing strength at column face = 0.4f cu
= 0.4 x 30N/mm2 = 12 N/mm2
Area of end plate required = Fx/0.4fcu
= 990 x 103 / 12
= 82500 mm2
Area provided for end plate
= 500 x 600
= 300000mm2 > 82500mm2 .o.k.
Clause
4.13.2.2
Plate size is adequate
Thickness Determination for End Plate

Tmin = ((2.5w/pyp)(a2-0.3b2))1/2
Where :
w = actual bearing stress of plate
= 990 x 103 / 300000 = 3.3 N/mm2
Pyp = design strength of plate = 265 N/mm2
a = greater projection of end plate = 96.8mm
b = lesser projection of end plate = 46.8mm
Therefore Tmin = 17.46mm
Thickness provided = 20mm > 17.46mm ..o.k.
Provided thickness
plate is adequate
of


Subject : Main Spine to Column Connection - End Plate Connection (PL-1)
References
Clause 6.3.2
Table 32
Clause 6.3.3.2
Table 32
Clause 6.6.2
Clause 6.6.5
Table 36
Clause 4.2.3
Table 6
Clause 6.3.3.3
Table 33
Calculation
Check Bolt in Shear
Using 6 Nos. M24 of Grade 8.8
Shear capacity in single shear, Ps = 132 kN
Total shear capacity of bolts
= 6 x 132 kN = 792 kN > Fy = 182 kN .. o.k.
Bolt in Bearing
Bolt Bearing Capacity, Pbb = dtpbb
= (24 x 20 x 970) / 103
= 465kN > Fy/6 = 30.3kN ..o.k.
Date : 29 July 2007
Sheet 2/2
Result/Output
Bolts are adequate in

shear

bearing
Weld
Using 6mm fillet welds, E43 electrodes
Effective length of weld = D = x 406.4 = 1276mm
Electrode strength (BS639), pw = 215 N/mm2
throat size = 0.7 x 6 = 4.2mm
Strength of weld/mm = (4.2 x 215) / 103 = 0.903 kN/mm
Weld Capacity = 0.903 x 1276 = 1152 kN > Fy= 182kN
1276mm length of 6mm

fillet weld is adequate
Plate in Shear
Shear per section = 182 kN /2 = 91 kN
Pv = 0.6pyAv
Av = 0.9 [(500 x 20) (3 x 28 x 20)] = 7488mm2
Pv = 0.6 x 265 x 7488 / 103 = 1190 kN
Since Pv > 91 kN .. o.k.
Plate is adequate in shear
Plate in Bearing
Pbs = dtpbs = (24 x 20 x 460) / 103
= 221 kN > Fy/6 = 30.3 kN o.k.
Plate is
bearing
adequate
NOTE:
Checking in design for Middle Connection (PL-2) is not performed
since having very minimal forces. Please refer to STAAD output in
Appendix C Support reactions for joint 308, 310, 312 and 314.
However, this connection detail could consider as enhancement to
end truss support.
in


Subject : Top Chords to Column Connection Top Plate Connection (PL-3)
References
Calculation
Appendix C
Compressive Force, Fy = 32 kN
Shear Force, Fx = 211 kN
Date : 29 July 2007
Sheet 1/2
Result/Output
Top Plate Connection Design (PL-3)

Using a 280 x 280 x 20mm thk. M.S. plate (PL-3)
Clause 4.13.1
Top Plate Design

Limit of compressive stress or bearing strength at top face of column
= 0.4fcu = 0.4 x 30N/mm2 = 12 N/mm2
Area of top plate required = Fy/0.4fcu
= 32 x 103 / 12
= 2667 mm2
Area provided for top plate
= 280 x 280
= 78400mm2 > 2667mm2 .o.k.
Clause
4.13.2.2
Plate size is adequate
Thickness Determination for Top Plate

Tmin = ((2.5w/pyp)(a2-0.3b2))1/2
Where :
w = actual bearing stress of plate
= 32 x 103 / 78400 = 0.41 N/mm2
Pyp = design strength of plate = 265 N/mm2
a = greater projection of end plate = 70mm
b = lesser projection of end plate = 70mm
Therefore Tmin = 3.6mm
Thickness provided = 20mm > 3.6mm ..o.k.
Provided thickness
plate is adequate
of


Subject : Top Chords to Column Connection - Top Plate Connection (PL-3)
References
Clause 6.3.2
Table 32
Clause 6.3.3.2
Table 32
Clause 6.6.2
Clause 6.6.5
Table 36
Clause 4.2.3
Table 6
Clause 6.3.3.3
Table 33
Calculation
Check Bolt in Shear
Using 2 Nos. M24 of Grade 8.8
= 2 x 132 kN = 264 kN > Fx = 211 kN .. o.k.
Bolt in Bearing
= (24 x 20 x 970) / 103
= 465kN > Fx/2 = 105.5kN ..o.k.
Date : 29 July 2007
Sheet 2/2
Result/Output

shear

bearing
Weld
Effective length of weld = D = x 140 = 440mm
Weld Capacity = 0.903 x 440 = 397 kN > Fx= 211kN
440mm length of 6mm

Plate in Shear
Shear per section = 211 kN /2 = 105.5 kN
Pv = 0.6pyAv
Av = 0.9 [(280 x 20) (1 x 28 x 20)] = 4536mm2
Pv = 0.6 x 265 x 4536 / 103 = 721 kN
Since Pv > 105.5 kN .. o.k.
Plate in Bearing
Pbs = dtpbs = (24 x 20 x 460) / 103
= 221 kN > Fx/2 = 105.5 kN o.k.
Plate is
bearing
adequate
in


Subject : Splice Joint Connection Design Main Spine (PL-1a)
References
Calculation
Appendix C
Location of
Splice
12.2m from
support
24.4
from
support
Fx
1004kN
(Compression)
1003kN
(Compression)
Fy
(Shear)
49kN
Mz
(Moment)
71kNm
44kN
96kNm
Date : 19 Feb 2007
Sheet 1/2
Result/Output
Note : Connection design will be based on maximum value in between

both location of splices
Splice Joint Connection Design
Using a 600 x 500 x 12mm thk. M.S. plate
Clause 6.3.2
Table 32
Clause 6.3.3.2
Table 32
Clause 4.2.3
Table 6
Check Bolt in Shear (Fy = 49 kN)

= 6 x 132 kN = 792 kN > Fy = 49 kN .. o.k.
Bolt in Bearing
= (24 x 12 x 970) / 103
= 279kN > Fy/6 = 8.2kN .o.k.
Plate in Shear
Shear per section = 49kN /2 = 24.5kN
Pv = 0.6pyAv
Av = 0.9 [(500 x 12) (3 x 28 x 12)] = 4492mm2
Pv = 0.6 x 275 x 4492 / 103 = 741 kN
Since Pv > 24.5 kN --- o.k.

shear

bearing


Subject : Splice Joint Connection Design Main Spine (PL-1a)
References
Clause 6.3.3.3
Table 33
Clause 6.6.2
Clause 6.6.5
Table 36
Calculation
Plate in Bearing
Pbs = dtpbs = (24 x 12 x 460) / 103
= 132 kN > Fy/6 = 8.2 kN o.k.
Weld
Effective length of weld = D = x 406.4 = 1276mm
Date : 19 Feb 2007
Sheet 2/2
Result/Output
Plate is
bearing
adequate
in
1276mm length of 6mm

Checking Bolts in Moment (Mz = 96kNm)

Member force induced by the Moment
= Moment / lever arm
= 96 / 0.3985 = 241kN
Since 2 bolts (ignoring the centre bolt) at one side considered to resist
tensile force induced by the Moment, therefore tensile force per bolt
= 241 / 2 = 120.5 kN
Tensile capacity for 1 No. M24 bolt of grade 8.8
= 159 kN > 120.5kN o.k.
Clause 6.3.6.3
Bolts are adequate to

resist
tensile
force
induced by moment
Combined Shear and Tension

When bolts are subject to both shear and tension, the following
condition should be satisfied :
Fs/Ps + Ft/Pt < 1.4
(8.2/132) +(120.5/159) = 0.82 < 1.4 o.k.
Additional condition is
satisfied


Subject : Splice Joint Connection Design Top Chords (PL-2a)
References
Calculation
Appendix C
Location of
Splice
12.2m from
support
24.4
from
support
Fx
213kN
(Compression)
213kN
(Compression)
Fy
(Shear)
4kN
Mz
(Moment)
3kNm
4kN
3kNm
Date : 19 Feb 2007
Sheet 1/2
Result/Output
Note : Connection design will be based on maximum value in between

both location of splices
Splice Joint Connection Design
Using a 280 x 280 x 12mm thk. M.S. plate
Clause 6.3.2
Table 32
Clause 6.3.3.2
Table 32
Clause 4.2.3
Table 6
Check Bolt in Shear (Fy = 4 kN)

= 4 x 132 kN = 528 kN > Fy = 4 kN .. o.k.
Bolt in Bearing
= (24 x 12 x 970) / 103
= 279kN > Fy/4 = 1kN .o.k.
Plate in Shear
Shear per section = 4kN /2 = 2kN
Pv = 0.6pyAv
Av = 0.9 [(280 x 12) (2 x 28 x 12)] = 2419mm2
Pv = 0.6 x 275 x 2419 / 103 = 399 kN
Since Pv > 2 kN --- o.k.

shear

bearing


Subject : Splice Joint Connection Design Top Chords (PL-2a)
References
Clause 6.3.3.3
Table 33
Clause 6.6.2
Clause 6.6.5
Table 36
Calculation
Plate in Bearing
Pbs = dtpbs = (24 x 12 x 460) / 103
= 221 kN > Fy/4 = 1 kN o.k.
Weld
Effective length of weld = D = x 140 = 440mm
Date : 19 Feb 2007
Sheet 2/2
Result/Output
Plate is
bearing
adequate
in
440mm length of 6mm

Checking Bolts in Moment (Mz = 3kNm)

Member force induced by the Moment
= Moment / lever arm
= 3 / 0.135 = 23kN
Since 2 bolts at one side considered to resist tensile force induced by
the Moment, therefore tensile force per bolt
= 23 / 2 = 11.5 kN
Tensile capacity for 1 No. M24 bolt of grade 8.8
= 159 kN > 11.5kN o.k.
Clause 6.3.6.3
Bolts are adequate to

resist
tensile
force
induced by moment
Combined Shear and Tension

When bolts are subject to both shear and tension, the following
condition should be satisfied :
Fs/Ps + Ft/Pt < 1.4
(1/132) +(11.5/159) = 0.08 < 1.4 o.k.
Additional condition is
satisfied

8.0 EXISTING COLUMN STIFFNESS TO RESIST LATERAL FORCE AND INTERNAL MOMENT
Design Pro Sdn Bhd also would like to address some related technical issues pertaining to this
incident upon studying the failure mode. It is intended to secure all aspects in engineering exercise
as well as to eliminate any potential causes affecting the structural integrity of the overall roof truss
assembly. The following suggestion is based on overall modeling of steel roof truss, r.c. columns
and r.c. beams adhering to the construction arrangement.
In addition to the earlier design data, the following r.c. components were incorporated in the final
model. STAAD III is used in this analytical exercise. Datum shall refer to the ground floor level taken
as 0.00 meter. Finished level for beams shall refer to the top part.
Column size
: 400 mm x 400 mm
Roof Beam (perimeter)
: 400 mm x 1200 mm (FL + 11.0 m)
Intermediate beam (facing Main Curve Corridor)
: 150 mm x 600 mm
(FL + 7.0 m)
Intermediate beam 1 (facing Kampong Area)
: 150 mm x 600 mm
(FL + 3.5 m)
Intermediate beam 2 (facing Kampong Area)
: 150 mm x 600 mm
(FL + 7.0 m)
Intermediate beam (facing Changing Room)
: 150 mm x 600 mm
(FL + 7.0 m)
Intermediate beam (facing Sport Complex)
: 150 mm x 600 mm
(FL + 7.0 m)
Concrete grade
: 30 N/mm2
A) Column stiffness
Design Pro Sdn Bhd would like to note the column stiffness in resisting lateral forces hence reducing
the deflection under serviceability requirement. The most critical columns located along the gridline
facing Main Curve Corridor due to the fact that only one intermediate beam (may serve as
restraining member and reducing the effective length of column) at 7.0 meter elevation was
constructed during the incident. The columns facing Kampong Area may received the same forces
but having 2 levels of intermediate beams. The following calculations concentrate on the columns
facing Main Curve Corridor.

A1) Consideration of short or slender column

The column (if considered as braced structures) is slender as the values of lex/h and ley/b are 16
(limit for short column is 15). This value reflect the column segment from ground to intermediate
beam only. Slender column shall induced inherent additional moment.
The second segment from intermediate beam to roof beam is short.
Calculation : (7000 600 / [400])
= 16
A2) Deflection under serviceability requirement

As mentioned earlier, the deflection of column was outward (ie towards the Main Curve Corridor). A
logical explanation would suggest a strong lateral force produced by the curved truss profile
especially by the main spine end support. If this condition can be accepted then the deflection of
columns may be significant enough to disintegrate the whole truss assembly. It is also noted only
construction load were applied to the column at time of incident . Design Pro Sdn Bhd only applied
the minimum unfactored load that may be experienced by the column. The minimum unfactored
construction load considered in this analysis is shown in Table 3.
1.
2.
3.
UNFACTORED CONSTRUCTION LOAD FOR DEFLECTION CHECK

Load type
Force (kN) per column
100 % selfweight of roof truss
168.0
50% dead load purlin, roofing, insulation, M&E
152.0
100 % unfactored load
647.0
Table 3 : Unfactored Construction Load Considered for Deflection Check
From STAAD-III output, the following results were obtained and tabulated in Table 4.
1.
2.
3.
DEFLECTION CHECK (COLUMN FACING MAIN CURVE CORRIDOR)

Load Type
Deflection max (mm)
100 % selfweight
87
100 % selfweight + 50 % dead load
167
100 % unfactored load
337
Table 4 : Deflection Results

The theoretical deflection value however may be may be relatively high and not as observed at site
due to the followings :
Concrete Youngs Modulus of Elasticity (Ec) is taken as 28 kN/mm2. This value may
increase to 32 kN/mm2 (upper boundary value)
Column can be consider as composite material with the presence of steel

reinforcement. The Youngs Modulus of Elasticity for composite material (E com) may
give slightly higher value compare to Ec (not considered in this analysis)
Presence of ground beam may increase the global stiffness hence reducing the
deflection (not considered in this analysis)
Presence of roof truss may provide additional restraint in the plane being considered
(not considered in this analysis)
Presence of purlins that may act as diaphragm to roof truss may increase the overall
truss stiffness
The presence of brickwall may contribute to the overall stiffness but may not be
significant in the plane of bending being considered.
The deflection of columns facing Main Curve Corridor however is still significant and can be noted
physically (in the range of 100-200 mm). However, extra precautions must be taken due to the fact
that not ALL load being imposed to the column at time of incident. A larger deflection may be
possible if all loads are mobilized in full manner.
Cracks at columns located close to base may not due to deflection or high compressive stress (no
crushing of concrete observed) but most likely due high bending stress. A rigorous check using
STAAD III shows that a maximum moment of 1872 kNm at support under construction load. If
inadequate reinforcement is provided in this tension region, yielding of reinforcement may occur and
continue with propagation of tension cracks. At full unfactored load, the theoretical bending moment
found to be 3973 kNm.
The structural modeling and associated STAAD-III output is shown in Appendix D

9.0 CONCLUSION
Upon comprehensive analytical study, DPCSB conclude the overall issues as follows :
1) Connection proposal based on structural calculation and detailing are in accordance to the
Code of Practice and engineering practice. Adequate provision under both serviceability and
ultimate limit state and as shall not cause any failure.
2) Integrity of proposed connection at main spine column and splices remain intact under
internal forces and inherent behavior of the bolts. This integrity however discounted any
external factor beyond encountered beyond DPCSB work scope
3) Observation, failure mode & load path study and post structural analysis study showed that
the reversible forces experienced by bolts at main spine column connection due to
excessive deflection (in outward position) remain as the main reason that disintegrate the
whole truss system. Damage to main spine column connection and splice joint believed to
be the secondary effect. It is strongly suggested that any rectification proposal to be based
on the main reason.
4) Cross check between proposed and construction details showed a conservative approach
in terms of bolts size, splice plate thickness and splice plate size.
5) It is also suggested to check the adequacy of 400 mm x 400 mm column having adequate
stiffness at 100% unfactored load application. DPCSB rigorous check showed that a
significant amount of deflection had already taken place even at partial load effect.
6) It also suggested to check the provision of reinforcement in the column due to presence of
structural cracks (close to ground level).

Report Futsal Court Kemasek

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Report Futsal Court Kemasek

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 1 D:\from THUMB-DRIVE(130607)\spmegasb\petronas-tggnu\futsal court\design report kemasek.doc

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 2 D:\from THUMB-DRIVE(130607)\spmegasb\petronas-tggnu\futsal court\design report kemasek.doc

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

3.0 FUTSAL COURT TRUSS DESIGN DATA

Main spine members 406.4 mm x 7.9 mm x 77.6 kg/m CHS

Top chord members 140 mm x 5.0 mm x 16.6 kg/m CHS

Curved angle approximately 8.5 degree

Steel selfweight 77 kN/m3

Steel Grade 43A/S275

Bolt Grade 8.8

Roofing dead load 0.06 kN/m2

Insulation and purlin 0.06 kN/m2

M & E services 0.25 kN/m2

Live load 0.25 kN/m2

Wind load (uplift) 0.25 kN/m2

Column size 400 mm x 400 mm

Beam size (receiving end) 450 mm x 1400 mm

Concrete Grade 30 N/mm2 at 28 days

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 3 D:\from THUMB-DRIVE(130607)\spmegasb\petronas-tggnu\futsal court\design report kemasek.doc

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

4.0 CHANGES MADE TO THE ROOF TRUSS

Roof span 40.4 meter

Bottom chord profile straight

Truss members generally adopting RHS assemblage

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 4 D:\from THUMB-DRIVE(130607)\spmegasb\petronas-tggnu\futsal court\design report kemasek.doc

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

Roof span 60.4 meter

Bottom chord profile curve at approximately 8.5 degree

Truss members generally adopting CHS assemblage

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 5 D:\from THUMB-DRIVE(130607)\spmegasb\petronas-tggnu\futsal court\design report kemasek.doc

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

5.0 COMPARISON BETWEEN SHOP DRAWINGS AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS

COMPARISON BETWEEN SHOP DRAWINGS AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS

Availability of materials different suppliers may stock slightly different

Design requirements as per DPCSB calculation

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 6 D:\from THUMB-DRIVE(130607)\spmegasb\petronas-tggnu\futsal court\design report kemasek.doc

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

6.0 MODE OF FAILURE

DAMAGED TO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Based on this observation, THREE (3) failure modes can be concluded :

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 7 D:\from THUMB-DRIVE(130607)\spmegasb\petronas-tggnu\futsal court\design report kemasek.doc

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 8 D:\from THUMB-DRIVE(130607)\spmegasb\petronas-tggnu\futsal court\design report kemasek.doc

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

Truss (design to identify adequate member sizes) Connection (design to satisfy

Column (check under serviceability requirement to provide adequate

Case 1 : Splice Plate Failure

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 9 D:\from THUMB-DRIVE(130607)\spmegasb\petronas-tggnu\futsal court\design report kemasek.doc

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

connected members will give way

adjacent members will experience additional forces

effective length of associated members increase

reversible of member internal forces (compression to tension vice versa)

reversible of support reactions (compression to tension)

Case 2 : Main Spine Column Connection Failure

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

Case 3 : Excessive Deflection of Column due to External Lateral Force

end bearing contribution is not available

no contribution from the presence of connecting plate. Dispersion of tension force is

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________- 11 D:\from THUMB-DRIVE(130607)\spmegasb\petronas-tggnu\futsal court\design report kemasek.doc

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE FAILURE OF ROOF TRUSSES SYSTEM AT FUTSAL COURT

7.0 DETAILED DESIGN CONFORMING TO SUBMITTED CALCULATIONS