You are on page 1of 8

Copyright by: Aguel & Associates CASE STUDY: DYNAMIC ANALYSIS VERIFICATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING

3.50m

3.50m 5.00m

6.00m 5.00m
Y X Z

6.00m 5.00m 6.00m Load 1

2-STORY BUILDING WITH ROOF DECK 3 BAYS ALONG X DIRECTION @ 6M O.C. 3 BAYS ALONG Z DIRECTION @ 5M O.C. 2 FLOORS @ 3.5M O.C. COLUMN SIZES 400X400mm BEAMS 300X500mm LOADS: SELFWEIGHT WEIGHT OF SLAB AND SUPER IMPOSED DEADLOAD FOR 2F AND ROOF DECK = 5 KPa

DETERMINE THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD AND MASS PARTICIPATION FACTOR OF THE FIRST 5 MODES:

Copyright by: Aguel & Associates USING MIDAS GEN WHICH HAS A FEATURE TO AUTOMATICALLY CALCULATE THE CENTER OF MASS

Copyright by: Aguel & Associates MIDAS GEN RESULT: PERIOD MODE 1 MODE 2 MODE 3 MODE 4 MODE 5 0.428 0.415 0.366 0.139 0.137 MASS PARTICIPATION 90.14 90.61 90.59 9.86 9.39 TRANSLATION-X TRANSLATION-Y (Z IN STAADPRO) ROTATION-Z (Y IN STAADPRO) TRANSLATION-X TRANSLATION-Y

IN STAADPRO TO SIMULATE RIGID FLOOR DIAPHRAGM WHICH HAS INFINITE IN-PLANE STIFFNESS THE MASTER ZX COMMAND SHOULD BE USED. HOWEVER, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO DETERMINE THE CENTER OF MASS AND MAKE IT THE MASTER NODE TO GET AN ACCURATE RESULT. I WOULD ASSUME THAT THIS IS THE REASON WHY THE DEVELOPER OF STAADPRO ADDED IN THE LATEST RELEASE SS4 THE AUTOMATIC CALCULATION OF CENTER OF MASS TO GET AN ACCURATE RESULT IN DYNAMIC ANALYSIS. IT WILL BE SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING IMAGES THE INACCURACY OF USING ANY NODE TO BE THE MASTER NODE AND GET AN ERRONEOUS RESULT.

USING MASTER SLAVE ZX IN STAADPRO WITH MASTER NODE CLOSE TO THE CENTER OF MASS

Copyright by: Aguel & Associates

STAADPRO RESULT WITH MASTER NODE CLOSE TO THE CENTER OF MASS: PERIOD MODE 1 MODE 2 MODE 3 MODE 4 MODE 5 0.518 0.423 0.333 0.171 0.138 MASS PARTICIPATION 26.96 X 52.15 X 11.01 X 2.67 X 5.80 X 30.68-Z (TORSIONAL MODE) 37.78-Z (TORSIONAL MODE) 22.14-Z (TORSIONAL MODE) 3.35-Z (TORSIONAL MODE) 3.86-Z (TORSIONAL MODE)

AS YOU CAN SEE THE PREDOMINANT MODE OF VIBRATION IS TORSIONAL MODE. FOR SUCH A REGULAR STRUCTURE WE CAN EASILY OBSERVE THAT THE PREDOMINANT MODE OF VIBRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSLATION AS CAN BE SEEN FROM MIDAS GEN OUTPUT. WE WILL PROCEED WITH ANOTHER LOCATION OF MASTER NODE THEN WE WILL FINALLY SHOW HOW TO GET AN ACCURATE RESULT FROM STAADPRO USING PLATE MODELING TECHNIQUE.

Copyright by: Aguel & Associates USING MASTER SLAVE ZX IN STAADPRO WITH MASTER NODE AT THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING

Copyright by: Aguel & Associates STAADPRO RESULT WITH MASTER NODE AT THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING: PERIOD MODE 1 MODE 2 MODE 3 MODE 4 MODE 5 0.913 0.423 0.306 0.301 0.138 MASS PARTICIPATION 20.00 X 55.30 X 13.60 X 3.37 X 5.92 X 27.89-Z (TORSIONAL MODE) 34.89-Z (TORSIONAL MODE) 25.99-Z (TORSIONAL MODE) 4.74-Z (TORSIONAL MODE) 3.75-Z (TORSIONAL MODE)

STILL THE PREDOMINANT MODE OF VIBRATION IS TORSION AND OBSERVE THE PERIOD OF MODE 1 ALMOST DOUBLE THAN THE PREVIOUS CALCULATION AND VERY FAR OFF FROM THE MIDAS GEN OUTPUT. THIS ONLY SHOWS THAT THE LOCATION OF THE MASTER NODE WILL AFFECT THE MODE OF VIBRATION OF THE STRUCTURE.

CALCULATING FUNDAMENTAL PERIODS AND MASS PARTICIPATION FACTORS USING PLATE MODELING TECHNIQUE ASSUMING YOU DO NOT HAVE SS4 VERSION OF STAADPRO. (THIS IS STILL THE MOST ACCURATE METHOD FOR IRREGULAR STRUCTURES)

Copyright by: Aguel & Associates

STAADPRO RESULT USING ADVANCE PLATE MODELING TECHNIQUE: PERIOD MODE 1 MODE 2 MODE 3 0.428 0.415 0.366 MASS PARTICIPATION 90.14 90.61 0.00 TRANSLATION-X TRANSLATION-Z (STAADPRO DOES NOT SHOW MPF FOR PURE TORSIONAL MODE) MODE 4 MODE 5 0.139 0.137 9.86 9.39 TRANSLATION-X TRANSLATION-Z

Copyright by: Aguel & Associates COMPARISON OF RESULTS:

MIDAS GEN RESULT: PERIOD MODE 1 MODE 2 MODE 3 MODE 4 MODE 5 0.428 0.415 0.366 0.139 0.137 MASS PARTICIPATION 90.14 90.61 90.59 9.86 9.39

STAADPRO RESULT (PLATE) PERIOD 0.428 0.415 0.366 0.139 0.137 MASS PARTICIPATION 90.14 90.61 0 (N.A. IN STAAD) 9.86 9.39

100% MATCH:

CONCLUSION: AS WE CAN SEE THE MASTER SLAVE COMMAND IN STAADPRO CANNOT BE USED IN DYNAMIC ANALYSIS AS IT WILL YIELD ERRONEOUS RESULT. THIS SHORTCOMING IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY STAADPRO SUPPORT, HENCE IT IS IMPERATIVE TO VERIFY THE RESULT GIVEN BY STAADPRO AND DO NOT ACCEPT IT BLINDLY. FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS USE THE PLATE MODELING TECHNIQUE TO GET AN ACCURATE RESULT SINCE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE LOCATION OF CENTER OF MASS.