New School Building in Gol, Norway
Customer Project
In June 2016, a new modern school was opened in Gol, Norway after almost two years of construction.The three-story building with an approximate floor area of 91,493 ft² provides space for 750 students from the 1st through the 10th grade.
| Structural Engineering |
DBC AS Gol, Norway |
| Architects |
Arkitektene Vis-a-Vis Trondheim, Norway visavis.no |
| Investor |
Municipality of Gol, Norway www.gol.kommune.no |
| Construction |
Veidekke AS, avd. Hallingdal Oslo, Norway veidekke.no |
Model
Large glass surfaces provide good lighting conditions in the building all year round. The Norwegian company DBC AS, a customer of Dlubal Software, was responsible for the structural analysis of the school and the detailed planning of all in‑situ concrete constructions. In addition, DBC AS delivered the internal forces calculated in RFEM to the producer of the prefabricated construction parts (concrete & steel).
Structure
The entire spatial model was entered and calculated in the structural FEA software RFEM. It consists of steel, reinforced concrete, and timber and includes 1,421 members and 193 surfaces.
The roof covering of the school is realized with Lett‑Tak elements (sandwich elements with integrated thin steel sections). These elements have a very high load-bearing capacity for vertical loads (span up to 59 ft). However, they tend to be subjected to shear behavior. In order to represent the roof panels correctly, the surface elements with appropriate stiffnesses (determined by the Lett-Tak company on the basis of tests) were modeled in RFEM.
Two lift shafts and transverse walls of prefabricated prestressed concrete elements together with the steel diagonals ensure the horizontal stiffening. For the diagonals and columns, pipes and square tubes were used for aesthetic reasons. Rigid frames were applied in the areas where it was impossible to arrange the bracing.
Data exchange between the structural engineer and the architect or other parties was carried out by IFC models. In this way, it was possible to perform the optimum collision checks. Moreover, this was very helpful in meeting the very tight building schedule.
Write Comment...
Write Comment...
Contact us
Do you have questions or need advice?
Contact our free e-mail, chat, or forum support or find various suggested solutions and useful tips on our FAQ page.
Digital Trends in Structural Analysis and Design
The construction industry is increasingly digitized. Structural engineers, a smaller group in the construction industry, are not always considered as engineers who immediately join the latest trends. Often for good reason.
Material Model Orthotropic Masonry 2D
The material model Orthotropic Masonry 2D is an elastoplastic model that additionally allows softening of the material, which can be different in the local x- and y-direction of a surface. The material model is suitable for (unreinforced) masonry walls with in-plane loads.
- When I apply an area load to a surface with an opening, the load is not not accounted for at the opening. Is it possible to automatically consider the area load as a line load around the opening perimeter?
- Is it also possible to determine stiffnesses of an existing column instead of a fixed nodal support?
- I just have to calculate an open hall with low roof loads and relatively high wind loads compared to it. In theory, a design of the bottom flange for buckling/toppling would have to be performed. Unfortunately, there is no combination of 1.0 * G +1.5 * W.
- How do I get the largest column load in my RFEM 3D model?
- In RF‑CONCRETE Surfaces, I obtain a high amount of reinforcement in relation to a lever arm that is almost zero. How is such a small lever arm of internal forces created?
- How can I display membrane stresses in the results of RF‑STEEL Surfaces?
- What is the meaning of the superposition according to the CQC rule in a dynamic analysis??
- How is the automatic creation of c/t-parts carried out?
- When converting from the manual definition of reinforcement areas to the automatic arrangement of reinforcement according to Window 1.4, the result of the deformation calculation differs, although the basic reinforcement has not been modified. What is the reason for this change?
- I design a set of members by using the equivalent member method in RF‑/STEEL EC3, but the calculation fails. The system is unstable, delivering the message "Non-designable - ER055) Zero value of the critical moment on the segment."What could be the reason?
