Alasdair’s Engineering Pages © A. N. Beal 2024 www.anbeal.co.uk
www.anbeal.co.uk
The Structural Engineer, Volume 74, No. 1, 2 Jan. 1996
‘Skyhooks’ at 18 foot centres: strengthening a precast OPC/HAC concrete frame at Hattersley Heaton, Nottinghamshire
A. N. Beal BSc (Eng) CEng MIStructE MICE
Thomason Partnership
Synopsis
A two-
Description
Hattersley Heaton’s offices in Lenton Lane, Nottingham, occupy a fairly ordinary two-
The roof structure comprises 230mm x 203mm Trent H9 X-
The Trent T6 frame has rolled steel section cuttings cast into the concrete columns at each floor level; steel seating cleats bolted to these with HSFG bolts provide support to the incoming beams. The beams have cast-
Fig 1. General view (note rooftop tank room)
Investigation
Tests proved that the roof level X-
For strength assessment, reference was made to the recommendations in the Stone Committee report (BRAC Report by subcommittee P (High Alumina Cement Concrete)) [1]. This gives guidance on assessment of existing HAC structures. The roof and floor beams in this case fell outside the limits which can be deemed to be acceptable without calculation. Tabulated ultimate moment capacities for the Trent H9 joists are given as 24.1-
The tabulated beam moment capacities are based on an assumed strength for converted HAC concrete of 21N/mm², so in order to be acceptable the concrete in the roof joists would have needed to exceed a cube strength of 30N/mm². According to the Building Research Establishment, HAC in existing structures commonly has a strength of 30-
The first-
Core samples were taken (from the beam bottom flanges, at approximately quarter span points) and crushed to determine their strength. They were also tested (by X-
Core test results from HAC beam samples
The two samples which fell significantly below 30N/mm² were carefully examined. One contained three reinforcing wires and, unlike all the others, it had failed in shear, indicating a local plane of weakness. The other was noted to contain a piece of sandstone coarse aggregate, unlike the gravel found elsewhere in the concrete. For prudence, a second core sample was taken from this beam; this gave a strength of 47N/mm², and samples taken from the two neighbouring beams gave strengths of 46N/mm² and 45N/mm², supporting the view that the initial low result reflected a local pocket of poor concrete rather than a general weakness. The uniformly high conversion values gave confidence that further significant loss of strength was unlikely, so the beams were judged to be acceptable without strengthening.
Other problems
Although the major structural problem initially identified was the presence of HAC concrete, in the course of inspection and investigation some other problems were also identified.
(1) The grout at the external beam-
(2) Standard Trent beam details for the T6 system from the early 1970s show the projecting nibs on fascia boot beams as being reinforced with mild steel 8mm links, regardless of the span of the floor beams they supported. A section of nib in the structure was therefore opened up on site to check its reinforcement, and this was found to be reinforced with ¼in mild steel links -
(3) The roof asphalt had reached the end of its useful life.
Fig 2. Beam-
Fig 3. General section through building, showing remedial works scheme
Fig 4.
Detail at edge of first floor
Remedial works -
The client’s requirements were that, although parts of the first floor could be evacuated during the remedial works, the ground floor offices were to remain in use, as must the water tanks in the rooftop tank room. Combining these restrictions with the known poor ground conditions, it was clear that the simplest structural solution, insertion of internal columns on new foundations to support the roof and floor, was ruled out. In theory, new supporting beams could have been inserted below roof level to span across between the existing columns but this would have been very disruptive, with difficult steel-
With these solutions ruled out, the only alternative was to strengthen the roof structure from above, erecting ‘skyhooks’ -
To renew the roof asphalt at minimum cost and disruption, it was decided to overlay it with a layer of ‘Amascoflex’ reinforced asphalt and chippings. This additional weight further increased the stresses in the existing roof joists and simply introducing the additional support at midspan to relieve live load moments was not sufficient to reduce the stress to an acceptable level. To reduce the moments in the roof joists further, the new supports had to be preloaded, to relieve some of the dead load as well as the imposed load. A variety of specialised means are available for doing this, such as hydraulic flatjacks but it was felt that a simpler method should be sought, in order to keep cost and potential complications to a minimum.
The solution was to prestress the structure by controlled tightening of the supporting rods which passed through the roof. The main steel beams themselves were used as load cells to monitor the applied load. Calculations showed that if the bolts were preloaded to the required tension, this would deflect the main beams by 5mm. Using this technique, the contractor was able to prestress the beams by simply tightening the nuts on the support rods, controlling the applied preload by using an ordinary engineer’s level and staff to monitor the deflection of the beam. No difficulties were experienced on site, and the contractor found the process simple to understand and control.
Fig 5. Steel beams being inserted to support water tanks
Fig 6. Controlled prestressing of ‘skyhook’ beams
The rooftop tank room presented a different set of problems. Again there were strong reasons for trying to carry out all the work above roof level, so as to avoid disruption to the office below, but the space inside the tank room was very restricted, with the water tanks occupying most of its volume. The structural scheme adopted was simple: the insertion of a grillage of galvanised 203 x 203 UC beams beneath the tanks and to support them and relieve the existing HAC X-
The solution adopted was firstly to demolish one wall of the tankroom above roof level (for access) and to freeze the pipes to the tanks so that they could be cut and temporarily reconnected with flexible pipes. With this done, flat trolley jacks were slid in under the tanks, between the tank supports, and these were used to lift the tanks slightly, allowing just enough clearance to manoeuvre the new grillage support beams into place and lower the tanks on to them.
Remedial works -
Although the fascia beam nibs which support the main first-
To strengthen the nibs, horizontal, high tensile rods were inserted through them from the outside and prestressed to compress the nib and beam together, reducing the theoretical principal tensile stress in the concrete to an acceptable level. Site measurements of the nib which had been opened up indicated that there should be just enough space for drilled holes to pass through between these bars without cutting any main reinforcement; the links could be located on site by covermeter and the holes positioned to avoid any of them being cut.
The final detail adopted comprised M16 grade 8.8 steel rods with grade 10 nuts (as in steelwork HSFG bolts) passed horizontally through the beams and nibs. These were anchored on the inside by rectangular steel plates and on the outside by standard circular cast-
A series of pilot holes was drilled on site to confirm feasibility before proceeding with drilling the main series of holes. The required prestress was applied by torque wrench, with the torque/tension relationship being calibrated before proceeding on site. Bolts were tightened to 90% of the specified tension and then retorqued to full tension at least 24h later to check for relaxation.
At the external fascia beam-
Fig 7. Finished ‘skyhooks’
Conclusion
‘Skyhooks’ do have their uses and sometimes solutions to a tricky problem can be ‘high tech’ in principle but ‘low tech’ in execution. This may not push back the frontiers of engineering technology but it can be satisfying to the engineer, fun for the builder -
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Hattersley Heaton for permission to publish the material in this paper. Thanks are also due to the Building Research Establishment (Dick Currie and Nora Cramond) for helpful advice on HAC.
Core testing: Labtest
Chemical analysis: UK Analytical, Leeds
Building contractor: Friargate Ltd, Derby
Concrete repairs: SCL Ltd, Doncaster
Reroofing: Briggs Amasco
References
1. Building Regulations Advisory Committee Report by subcommittee P (High Alumina Cement Concrete), Department of the Environment, Welsh Office.
2. Chabowski, A. J., Bryden-
The original copy of this paper is available from
Strength |
29½ |
36 |
55 |
46 |
40½ |
43½ |
34 |
25 |
31 |
32 |
32 |
41½ |
24 |
38½ |
37½ |
35½ |
36½ |
34½ |
Conv. % |
95 |
86 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
84 |
95 |
77 |
95 |
89 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
91 |
95 |
Table 1 — Strength and conversion for core samples