Copyright by: Aguel & Associates

CASE STUDY: DYNAMIC ANALYSIS VERIFICATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING

3.50m

3.50m
5.00m

6.00m
5.00m

Y 6.00m
X
Z 5.00m Load 1
6.00m

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 MASS PARTICIPATION

MODE 1 0.428 90.14 TRANSLATION-X

MODE 2 0.415 90.61 TRANSLATION-Y (Z IN STAADPRO)

MODE 3 0.366 90.59 ROTATION-Z (Y IN STAADPRO)

MODE 4 0.139 9.86 TRANSLATION-X

MODE 5 0.137 9.39 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 MASS PARTICIPATION

MODE 1 0.518 26.96 –X 30.68-Z (TORSIONAL MODE)

MODE 2 0.423 52.15 –X 37.78-Z (TORSIONAL MODE)

MODE 3 0.333 11.01 –X 22.14-Z (TORSIONAL MODE)

MODE 4 0.171 2.67 –X 3.35-Z (TORSIONAL MODE)

MODE 5 0.138 5.80 –X 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 MASS PARTICIPATION

MODE 1 0.913 20.00 –X 27.89-Z (TORSIONAL MODE)

MODE 2 0.423 55.30 –X 34.89-Z (TORSIONAL MODE)

MODE 3 0.306 13.60 –X 25.99-Z (TORSIONAL MODE)

MODE 4 0.301 3.37 –X 4.74-Z (TORSIONAL MODE)

MODE 5 0.138 5.92 –X 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 MASS PARTICIPATION

MODE 1 0.428 90.14 TRANSLATION-X

MODE 2 0.415 90.61 TRANSLATION-Z

MODE 3 0.366 0.00 (STAADPRO DOES NOT SHOW MPF

FOR PURE TORSIONAL MODE)

MODE 4 0.139 9.86 TRANSLATION-X

MODE 5 0.137 9.39 TRANSLATION-Z

Copyright by: Aguel & Associates

COMPARISON OF RESULTS:

MIDAS GEN RESULT: STAADPRO RESULT (PLATE)

PERIOD MASS PARTICIPATION PERIOD MASS PARTICIPATION

MODE 1 0.428 90.14 0.428 90.14

MODE 2 0.415 90.61 0.415 90.61

MODE 3 0.366 90.59 0.366 0 (N.A. IN STAAD)

MODE 4 0.139 9.86 0.139 9.86

MODE 5 0.137 9.39 0.137 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.