Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Chapter Iv Final

    Uploaded by

    Mohamad Baulo
    The researchers identified eight primary load cases and ten load combinations to compare the structural performance of a moment-resisting frame system and a diagrid frame system. They modeled both structural systems in STAAD.Pro using the loads, dimensions, and specifications from the plans of a five-story school building. The results of this analysis will help determine which structural system provides greater resistance to lateral loads like earthquakes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Chapter Iv Final

    Uploaded by

    Mohamad Baulo
    17 views6 pages
    The researchers identified eight primary load cases and ten load combinations to compare the structural performance of a moment-resisting frame system and a diagrid frame system. They modeled both structural systems in STAAD.Pro using the loads, dimensions, and specifications from the plans of a five-story school building. The results of this analysis will help determine which structural system provides greater resistance to lateral loads like earthquakes.

    Original Description:

    123

    Original Title

    CHAPTER IV FINAL

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The researchers identified eight primary load cases and ten load combinations to compare the structural performance of a moment-resisting frame system and a diagrid frame system. They modeled both structural systems in STAAD.Pro using the loads, dimensions, and specifications from the plans of a five-story school building. The results of this analysis will help determine which structural system provides greater resistance to lateral loads like earthquakes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    17 views6 pages

    Chapter Iv Final

    Uploaded by

    Mohamad Baulo
    The researchers identified eight primary load cases and ten load combinations to compare the structural performance of a moment-resisting frame system and a diagrid frame system. They modeled both structural systems in STAAD.Pro using the loads, dimensions, and specifications from the plans of a five-story school building. The results of this analysis will help determine which structural system provides greater resistance to lateral loads like earthquakes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    CHAPTER IV

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    The behavior of the beam and column forces on concrete

    diagrid framing system were discussed through comparing the results with the

    conventional framing system. Additional comparison was the overall weights

    of the two system. In this comparative study, the lateral forces give significant

    role to determine which structural system has greater resistance to it.

    To obtain the usage computations, the following cases were

    chosen from Table 12: Load Combinations for comparison results, referred

    from National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015.

    a. 1.4 (D)

    b. 1.2 (D) + 1.6 (L) + 0.5 ( Lr )

    c. 1.2 D + 1.6 ( Lr ) + ( f 1 L)

    d. 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f1 L

    e. 0.9 D + 1.0 E + 1.6H


    4.1 Load Case Details

    Table 4.14: Load Cases and Load Combinations

    LOAD CASE NO. LOAD CASE DESCRIPTION


    Ex Earthquake Load in the positive x direction
    E-x Earthquake Load in the negative x direction
    Ez Earthquake Load in the positive z direction
    E-z Earthquake Load in the negative z direction
    D Dead Load
    L Live Load
    Lr Roof Live Load
    H Load due to Lateral Pressure
    1.4 (D) 1.4 * Dead Load
    1.2 (D) + 1.6 (L) + 0.5 ( Lr ) 1.2 * Dead Load + 1.6 * Live Load + 0.5 *

    Roof Live Load


    1.2 D + 1.6 ( Lr ) + ( f 1 L) 1.2 * Dead Load + 1.6 * Roof Live Load + 1.0

    * Live Load
    1.2 D + 1.0 Ex + f1 L 1.2 * Dead Load + 1.0 * Earthquake Load in

    the positive x direction + 1.0 * Live Load


    1.2 D + 1.0 E-x + f1 L 1.2 * Dead Load + 1.0 * Earthquake Load in

    the negative x direction + 1.0 * Live Load


    1.2 D + 1.0 Ez + f1 L 1.2 * Dead Load + 1.0 * Earthquake Load in

    the positive z direction + 1.0 * Live Load


    1.2 D + 1.0 E-z + f1 L 1.2 * Dead Load + 1.0 * Earthquake Load in

    the negative z direction + 1.0 * Live Load


    0.9 D + 1.0 Ex + 1.6H 0.9 * Dead Load + 1.0 * Earthquake Load in

    the positive x direction + 1.6 * Load due to

    Lateral Pressure
    0.9 D + 1.0 E-x + 1.6H 0.9 * Dead Load + 1.0 * Earthquake Load in

    the negative x direction + 1.6 * Load due to

    Lateral Pressure
    0.9 D + 1.0 Ez + 1.6H 0.9 * Dead Load + 1.0 * Earthquake Load in

    the positive z direction + 1.6 * Load due to


    Lateral Pressure
    0.9 D + 1.0 E-z + 1.6H 0.9 * Dead Load + 1.0 * Earthquake Load in

    the negative z direction + 1.6 * Load due to

    Lateral Pressure

    The researchers identified eight primary load cases and ten load

    combinations to compare the results of the moment-resisting framing system

    and diagrid framing system using the STAAD.Pro software. The said load

    cases and load combinations were tabulated in the following table (Table

    4.2 Determination of Dead Loads and Live Loads

    4.2.1 Dead Loads

    Dead loads were composed of the loads of the structure’s walls, steel

    beams, slabs and wall footing. Dead loads are important as the earthquake

    loads are dependent on these loads. Live loads were also considered in the

    structural analysis depending on its type of occupancy. In this case, the

    subject building is public school making it a Type 1 Occupancy Category. The

    results of the computation for the dead loads are as follows:

    Wall Distributed Load

    = 9 kN/m

    Slab Pressure

    = 2.95 kN/m
    The loads of the beams, columns, and wall footings were based on

    their own weights and are generated automatically in the STAAD.Pro

    software. Calculation of dead loads are shown in the appendices of this

    research.

    4.2.2 Live Loads

    Live loads were also considered as its forces were needed in the

    structural analysis using the STAAD.Pro software. These loads were manually

    encoded as in the software. In this case, the researches only considered the

    maximum live load based on the acquired plans. The following live loads were

    referred from the NSCP 2015:

    Maximum considered Live Load

    = 3.8 kN/m2

    4.3 Plans of the Building

    The researches have considered the five-storey building of Indahag

    National High School in Cagayan de Oro City as the subject building. The

    structural and architectural plans are attached in the appendices of this

    research and were used as basis for STAAD.Pro modelling, and load

    computations.

    4.4 STAAD.Pro Modelling

    4.4.1 Software Modelling


    In order to compare result and identify their differences specifically in

    the field of structural performance, two schemes were considered. Scheme

    one (1) considered the original configuration of the subject building, using

    plans gathered and specified in Section 4.3 of this study. Scheme two (2) was

    configured to have “X” bracings on the structure’s bays. This triangular

    configuration of beams was the diagrid counterpart.

    Scheme one (1) was configured according to the plans acquired

    without its shear walls. The following figure shows the 3D STAAD.Pro Model

    of the Scheme 1:

    Scheme two (2), considers the Diagrid Counterpart of the subject

    building, as shown in the following figure:

    4.5

    You might also like