A l i f Eiff l T (CEE 4404 C A l i f S I) Analysis of Eiffel Tower (CEE 4404 Computer Analysis of Structures I) Analysis of Eiffel Tower (CEE

er (CEE 4404 Computer Analysis of Structures I)

A d M h H hil P l Li M Ti G Ananda Mehta, Harshil Patel, Li Ma, Tian Gao Ananda Mehta, Harshil Patel, Li Ma, Tian Gao
Ad i C i t h D M Advisor : Cristopher D. Moen p
A l i i SAP2000 I d i
R ti
Analysis using SAP2000 Introduction
Reactions
a ys s s g S 000 Introduction
18 4
18 4
The Eiffel tower the global icon of France is an iron Assumptions
18.4
18.4
18.4
The Eiffel tower, the global icon of France, is an iron Assumptions
lattice tower, located on champ de mars, Paris, named as
Frame 2D Truss
N=11 740 K Nt=4050 K Nc=4050 K
lattice tower, located on champ de mars, Paris, named as
its desig er of G sta Eiffel The height of the to er is
Frame- 2D Truss
N=11,740 K Nt=4050 K Nc=4050 K
its designer of Gustav Eiffel. The height of the tower is
Member 20*20*4 in.
H' 1 280 k
H=1 280 k H=1 280 k
300 meters and the base width is 115 meters 15 000
Member 20 20 4 in.
Material A992 Steel
H'=1,280 k
V'=11 140 K
H=1,280 k
V=3840 K
H=1,280 k
V=3840 K 300 meters and the base width is 115 meters. 15,000
i i d 2 5 illi i d b ild
Material A992 Steel
V'=11,140 K
V 3840 K V 3840 K
iron pieces and 2.5 millions rivets were used to build
Pinned Supports
p
this gigantic tower
Pinned Supports
Due to Horizontal loads Due to Vertical loads
this gigantic tower.
Applied Loads
Due to Horizontal loads Due to Vertical loads
Applied Loads
Dead Load Results and Conclusion Dead Load Results and Conclusion
At Part 1= 16 92 kips/node At Part 1 16.92 kips/node
At P t 2 41 51 ki / d At Part 2 = 41.51 kips/node
Load Assumptions
p
At part 3 = 206 67 kips/node
Load Assumptions
At part 3 = 206.67 kips/node
Live Load
Thetowerwasseparatedinto
Live Load
At Le el 1 = 320 kips /node
p
three parts including two levels
At Level 1 = 320 kips./node
threepartsincludingtwolevels
At Level 2 = 85 7 kips /node
as shown in Figure1
At Level 2 85.7 kips./node
Wi d L d
11740K
11,740K
4050K 4050K
7,690K
asshowninFigure 1
Wind Load
11,740K 4,050K 4,050K
15,790K
Nodal load = 94 8 kips SAP2000
Hand Calculation
AssumedLoads:
Nodal load = 94.8 kips. SAP2000
Hand Calculation
ssu ed oads
Comparison Between Both Methods
Weight of Part 1 = 1100 kips.
H d C l l ti M th d
Comparison Between Both Methods
WeightofPart1 1100kips.
Hand Calculation Method
Reaction Hand calculation SAP 2000
Weight of Part 2 = 2200 kips
Reaction Handcalculation SAP2000
WeightofPart2=2200kips.
(Kips) (Kips)
Veritical Load
(Kips) (Kips)
WeightofPart3=15500kips.
Left To simplify the calculation the tower is
g p
Left
7 690 7 433
Tosimplifythecalculation,thetoweris
Live load on level 1 = 50 psf
Support
7,690 7,433
assumed as three point truss as shown in
Liveloadonlevel1=50psf
pp assumedasthreepointtrussasshownin
Figure 2
Li l d l l 2 50 f
Right
15 790 15 840
Figure2.
Liveloadonlevel2=50psf
g
Support
15,790 15,840 WindLoad p
Support
2,560K
Uniform Wind Load = 2.6 plf
Total Ve tical Fo ce(V)= 22 280 ki
UniformWindLoad 2.6plf
Total Vertical Force(V)= 22,280 kips.
The results from hand calculation is very
Total Horizontal Force(H)= 2 560 kips
The results from hand calculation is very
l SAP l i hi h h
Total Horizontal Force(H) 2,560 kips.
M t D t Wi d 1 259 000 ki ft
close to SAP2000 analysis, which means that
Moment Due to Wind= 1,259,000 kips.ft
Figure 1
y ,
the simplified method is very effective
, , p
Figure1
Figure2
the simplified method is very effective.
g
CHICAGO WATERVIEWTOWER CHICAGO WATERVIEWTOWER CHICAGO WATERVIEW TOWER C C GO O
Building Overview
R lt
BuildingOverview
Results
g
S b ildi
Results
90Storyconcretebuilding
Deflection(inches)
First30Storiesrectangular
Deflection(inches)
First30Storiesrectangular
T 6 S i i l
( )
l l
Top60Storiestriangular
NEColumn NWColumn NEColumn NWColumn
Boundary Conditions
X Y Z X Y Z
BoundaryConditions
All b i id dfi d
X Y Z X Y Z
Allmemberconnectionswereconsideredfixed
B
FixitiesatFoundationsconsideredrigid
Base 0 0 0 0 0 0
FixitiesatFoundationsconsideredrigid
S d l d S F StructurewasmodeledasaSpaceFrame
30
th
Floor 0.39 0.738 3.74 0.401 0.68 4.1 30 Floor 0.39 0.738 3.74 0.401 0.68 4.1
Materials
60
th
Floor 6 6 6
Materials
60
th
Floor 0.271 1.511 16.906 0.27 1.654 14.21
Properties
h
Properties
Hi hS hC
90
th
Floor 1.06 1.801 29.32 1.075 2.002 25.181
HighStrengthConcrete
9 9 3 75 5
Concretecompressionstrength:f
c
=14000psi
ModulusofElasticity:E=6750ksi y 75
PoissonsRatio:v=0 19 PoissonsRatio:v=0.19
Si lif i A ti
Reactions(kips) Moments(kips ft)
SimplifyingAssumptions
Reactions(kips) Moments(kipsft)
Neglectedsteelreinforcement
( p ) ( p )
g
Concrete elasticbehavior
R R R M M M
Concrete elasticbehavior
R
x
R
y
R
z
M
x
M
y
M
z
Analysis
8 8 6 6
Analysis
0 254808 1927 30991 125 1676
ModeledinRisa ModeledinRisa
Mastan2becameoverloaded Mastan2becameoverloaded
d l l Inputprismaticdimensionstocalculate: p p
Area(A) Area(A)
MomentofInertias(Ixx Iyy) MomentofInertias(Ixx,Iyy)
R di fG ti (J) RadiusofGyration(J)
Appliedloads pp
M d l d i RISA 3D M d l d i RISA 3D
CEE 4404 Computer Analysis of Structures I
Modeled in RISA-3D Modeled in RISA-3D
CEE 4404 Computer Analysis of Structures I
AndrewArnold Anthony Bauer
Structure without Loading Structure with Deflection
Andrew Arnold Anthony Bauer
J h E h i P l Zh Structure without Loading Structure with Deflection J onathan Emenheiser Paul Zheng
D f I f i S A P ki D k Defense Information System Agency Parking Deck DefenseInformationSystemAgencyParkingDeck f f y g y g
Group 7: Lindsey Bertholf Linda Carter Elizabeth Prusch Christopher Trent
O i A ti d Si lifi ti
Group7:LindseyBertholf,LindaCarter,ElizabethPrusch,ChristopherTrent
Overview AssumptionsandSimplifications
CEE 4404 Comp ter Anal sis of Str ct res I
The Defense Information System Agency Parking Deck is a two level deck for United States Department of
p p f
CEE4404 ComputerAnalysisofStructuresI
The Defense Information System Agency Parking Deck is a two level deck for United State s Department of
Defense employees. The structure accompanies an office building built at the same time. The office buildings
Thecolumnlayoutwasfairlyregularinplan,andforthepurposeofouranalysis,weassumedthelayoutwasexactlyregular.
Th 3 b t 60 i th Z di ti d 12 b t 48 i th X di ti Fi 2 h th l t ll
12bays @48 =576 0
Defense employees. The structure accompanies an office building built at the same time. The office building s
function is to remain a secret to the public because it is used by the Department of Defense (DoD). Originally, the
Therewere3baysat60intheZdirection,and12baysat48intheXdirection.Figure2showsthelayoutaswellasa
rendered drawing of the double tees in a bay Four double tees run in the Z direction in each bay For clarity the inverted 12bays @ 48 =576 0
DoD did not plan on building a parking deck. However, when the building design came in under budget, it was
rendereddrawingofthedoubletee sinabay.Fourdoubletee srunintheZdirectionineachbay.Forclarity,theinverted
teebeamsarenotshownintherendering.
decided to add the parking deck.
Thi ki t t i l t d i F t M d M l d F t M d i l t d b t W hi t DC d
g
Eachdoubleteewasprecastin6000psiconcrete.ArenderingisshowninFigure3.Ithasthefollowing
This parking structure is located in Fort Meade, Maryland. Fort Meade is located between Washington, DC and
Baltimore Maryland Because of its geographic location the area is highly populated and the DoD employs many
p p g g g
properties:
0

Baltimore, Maryland. Because of it s geographic location, the area is highly populated, and the DoD employs many
people Thus a parking structure is of great benefit to maximize land space
TotalDepth=305/8
W i ht f t 93 7 f
8
0

people. Thus, a parking structure is of great benefit to maximize land space.
The General contractor for the job was Hensel Phelps. The architect for the parking deck was RTKL, Baltimore,
Weightpersquarefoot:93.7psf,
Weight per lineal foot: 1122 plf
0

=

1
j p p g , ,
and Tim Haahs from Blue Bell, Pennsylvania was the parking consultant and engineer. Shockey precast group was
Weightperlinealfoot:1122plf,
I=73471in^4,
s
@

6
0
also contracted to help build the structure.
,
S
bot
=3181in^3
Figure 3 Double Tee Rendering
3

b
a
y
s
The parking deck includes parking on the ground level, and one level above. The design originally included
h ll i th iddl f th d k Sh k i h did t lik thi d i d t d th h
S
top
=9705in^3
C 23 065" f th b tt
Figure3 DoubleTeeRendering
3
shear walls in the middle of the deck. Shockey engineers, however, did not like this design and wanted the shear
walls to be removed They first had to search IBC 2006 and ASC 7 05 to make sure the use of columns as
C
g
=23.065"fromthebottom,
Area = 1028 6 sq in includes fillets chamfers and rounded corners walls to be removed. They first had to search IBC 2006 and ASC 705 to make sure the use of columns as
cantilevers against lateral loads was not prohibited. It is not, so it was suggested that the shear wall be removed,
Area=1028.6sq.in.includesfillets,chamfersandroundedcorners,
Stems:61/4"atbottomand73/4"attop
cantilevers against lateral loads was not prohibited. It is not, so it was suggested that the shear wall be removed,
and since the structure is Seismic design category A, a value of R=1. Eliminating the shear wall meant a product
/ / p
Flange:26"deep,45/8"thickx1433/4"wide.
Figure2 BayLayoutandDoubleTeeRendering g g y , g p
code or two and about 12 pieces could also be eliminated from the design. Doing so increased the repetition of
Stemsarespacedat6'
the columns and beams, which reduced the cost of the project.
h f d f d d d bl b d b b
ThedeckwasfirstmodeledinAutoCAD,andthenimportedintoRisa3Dforanalysis.Thefollowingsimplificationsand
The top story is formed out of precast and prestressed 12 double tee beams. Inverted Tbeams run between
columns and support the double tees The double tee beams span 60 feet between the inverted T beams
assumptionswereusedwhenmodelingthedeck:
Pinned connections This was used because all members were pre cast and fixed column base columns and support the double tees. The double tee beams span 60 feet between the inverted Tbeams.
Figure 1 shows part of the top storys plan One double tee is highlighted in maroon The supporting inverted
Pinnedconnections Thiswasusedbecauseallmemberswereprecastandfixedcolumnbase
Neglect impact of stairwells Figure 4 shows an elevation of the deck. The stairwells (highlighted in red) protruded from the Figure 1 shows part of the top story s plan. One double tee is highlighted in maroon. The supporting inverted
Ts are highlighted in orange. The double tees are connected as shown in the plan by the x.
Neglectimpactofstairwells Figure4showsanelevationofthedeck.Thestairwells(highlightedinred)protrudedfromthe
baylayout.Theirimpactwasneglectedsincethelateralstiffnessofthesystemisprovidedbythecolumnsandteebeams.
T s are highlighted in orange. The double tee s are connected as shown in the plan by the x .
Thesamecrosssectionalpropertieswereusedfordoubleteesandtheinvertedteebeamstomakemodeling easier.
Eachdoubleteewasmodeledasonebeamwiththepropertiesofadoubletee.Eachbeamintersectsthe invertedtee
beams at the centerline of the double tee beamsatthecenterlineofthedoubletee.
Figure4 ColumnsThatWereRemoved
Figure1 TopStoryFramingPlan
d d
L d C 2 C l R l L d C 3 C t t d S L d
Load Case 1 Design Loading
LoadCase2 ColumnRemoval LoadCase3 ConcentratedSnowLoad
LoadCase1 DesignLoading
LiveLoad:
The second load case considered the effect of
The third load case that was studied was
Deck40psf
removing a column. In a parking garage many
thi h i l di hi i t
based on a case study of a parking garage
Snow21psf
f d l d l d f k d k
things can happen including a car crashing into
a column While this may not necessarily
which was loaded over its capacity. This
Uniformwindloadalongonesideofparkingdeck
Dead Load
a column. While this may not necessarily
cause a column collapse something else
parking garage belonged to the Census
DeadLoad:
Self weight of members
cause a column collapse something else
possibly could The column that was removed
Bureau headquarters and had been
tl t t d Th f th
Selfweightofmembers possibly could. The column that was removed
was on the exterior of the parking deck. A
recently constructed. The cause of the
excessive load was due to a large pile of
Figure 5 shows a view from the end of the parking
was on the exterior of the parking deck. A
deflected shape of the bays that were affected
excessive load was due to a large pile of
snow and ice that resulted in a load that
Figure 5 shows a view from the end of the parking
structure with the uniformly distributed load and
p y
by the removal of the column can be seen in
snow and ice that resulted in a load that
was 6 to 7 times the design load For our
y
reactions. The vertical reactions at the base of figure. The columns to the left and right of
was 6 to 7 times the design load. For our
project, we simulated this load by using a
the column were around 600 kips, the horizontal the removed columns also have a deflected
project, we simulated this load by using a
2.822 K/ft uniform load across each double
reactions were around 50 kips and the moments
d 340 ki ft Fi 6 h th
shape. This deflected shape can be seen in
b th fi d fi Th ti l ti
/
tee beam in the chosen bay. The largest
Figure 9 Load Case 3 Deflected Shape
were around 340 kipft. Figure 6 shows the
deflected shape of the parking deck once the
both figure and figure The vertical reaction
at the base of the columns that remained on
moment resulting from the load was 243.2
Figure9 LoadCase3DeflectedShape
deflected shape of the parking deck once the
design loads were applied. The maximum
at the base of the columns that remained on
either side of the removed column was around
Kft, the largest vertical reaction was 251.8
design loads were applied. The maximum
deflection was 3.3 in. The deflected shape in all
either side of the removed column was around
330 kips the horizontal reaction was 80 kips
K and the largest horizontal reaction was
43 7 K Th it d f th lti
Figure 7 Load Case 2 Deflected Shape
p
of the bays is the same because of our
330 kips, the horizontal reaction was 80 kips
and the moment was 20 kipft. These
43.7 K. The magnitude of the resulting
reactions seemed reasonable If a loading
Figure7 LoadCase2DeflectedShape
assumption that the connections of the beams to
i d d i d l i d
and the moment was 20 kip ft. These
reactions can also be seen in figure the
reactions seemed reasonable. If a loading
closer to what the Census Bureau parking
girders and girders to columns were pinned.
g
maximum deflection in the beams was 5.9 in.
closer to what the Census Bureau parking
garage experienced (147 psf with a garage experienced (147 psf with a
uniformly distributed value of about 7 Figure6 LoadCase1DeflectedShape uniformly distributed value of about 7
K/ft), the deflections and reactions would
g p
/ ),
have been much more severe.
Figure 10 Load Case 3 Loading and Reactions Figure10 LoadCase3LoadingandReactions
Figure8 LoadCase2DeflectedShapeandReactions
Figure5 LoadCase1LoadingandReactions
g p
A l d b K th i A th Analyzedby:KatherineArthur,
Matt Fizzano Casey Horn Marc Maguire MattFizzano,CaseyHorn,MarcMaguire
Scope: Scope:
The team was to find a structure of their choice and model it in a structural analysis software of their Theteamwastofindastructureoftheirchoiceandmodelitinastructuralanalysissoftwareoftheir
choosing The analysis to be performed was open for the group to decide choosing.Theanalysistobeperformedwasopenforthegrouptodecide.
Deflected Shape with Applied Load Case DeflectedShapewithAppliedLoadCase p pp
Load cases were not chosen by a set requirement we chose the loads based on curiosity We Loadcaseswerenotchosenbyasetrequirement,wechosetheloadsbasedoncuriosity.We
found that there is a coal mine that runs under support structures so we modeled a load case foundthatthereisacoalminethatrunsundersupportstructuressowemodeledaloadcase
after a minor cave in The fire load was based on a forest fire running up the mountain The live afteraminorcavein.Thefireloadwasbasedonaforestfirerunningupthemountain.Thelive
load was based on research and the other loads are standard dead loads loadwasbasedonresearch,andtheotherloadsarestandarddeadloads.
Frame Truss % Diff
RISA RISA
Mid DeckDeflection (in) 3.374 3.41 1.06%
MaximumArch Deflection (in) 5.466 5.056 8.11%
Maximum Deck Span Deflection (in) 5.116 5.157 0.80% MaximumDeckSpan Deflection (in) 5.116 5.157 0.80%
MaximumMember AxialLoad (k) 6149.536 6152.4 0.05%
M i M b M (k f ) 1071 382 MaximumMember Moment (kft) 1071.382
MaximumAxialStress(ksi) 11.587 11.61 0.20%
Self Weight
MaximumBendingStress(ksi) 6.273
SelfWeight
Themodelhadtobecreatedbasedoninformationthatwewereabletofindinamagazinearticle(noplansetswerefound).Some ofthe
Frame Truss %Diff
RISA
informationwasdifficulttointerpretandhadtobeassumed.
RISA
Mid DeckDeflection (in) 9.066 9.35 3.04%
MaximumArch Deflection (in) 9.611 9.84 2.33%
MaximumDeckSpan Deflection (in) 10.425 10.71 2.66% p ( )
MaximumMember AxialLoad (k) 9802.296 9820.9 0.19%
M i M b M t (k ft) 2856 495 MaximumMember Moment (kft) 2856.495
MaximumAxialStress(ksi) 29.904 31.89 6.23%
D k W i ht
MaximumBendingStress(ksi) 11.309
DeckWeight
Frame Truss % Diff
RISA
Mid DeckDeflection (in) 4.786 4.9 2.33% ( )
MaximumArch Deflection (in) 5.458 5.31 2.79%
M i D k S D fl ti (i ) 5 433 5 5 1 22% MaximumDeckSpan Deflection (in) 5.433 5.5 1.22%
MaximumMember AxialLoad (k) 6600.688 6605.9 0.08%
MaximumMember Moment (kft) 1399.372
Maximum Axial Stress (ksi) 12 269 12 28 0 09% MaximumAxialStress(ksi) 12.269 12.28 0.09%
MaximumBendingStress(ksi) 5.978
LiveLoad
Frame Truss % Diff
RISA RISA
Mid DeckDeflection (in) 3.336 3.375 1.16%
MaximumArch Deflection (in) 5.74 5.252 9.29%
Maximum Deck Span Deflection (in) 10 839 10 85 0 10% MaximumDeckSpan Deflection (in) 10.839 10.85 0.10%
MaximumMember AxialLoad (k) 6461.624 6451.4 0.16% Member A (in
2
) I (in
4
)
MaximumMember Moment (kft) 1089.177
Maximum Axial Stress (ksi) 24.163 24.865 2.82%
DeckPost/Diag 15.6 541
Bent Max 396 153245
Process:
Fire Load
MaximumAxialStress(ksi) 24.163 24.865 2.82%
MaximumBendingStress(ksi) 10.06
Bent Max 396 153245
ArchChordBig 538 189652
WebuiltamodelofthebridgeinRISA3Dandusedmembersizesthatweassumedbasedonthedrawingsandphotosthatwewere abletofind.
FireLoad
F T % Diff
ArchChordMed 426 160808
ArchChordSmall 315 132122
Aboveisanimageofthemodelandtotherightisatableandalegendthatdefineswhatsizememberswereused.Weassumedthatthebottoms
( )
Frame Truss %Diff
RISA
ArchChordSmall 315 132122
ArchDiag 227 40747
ofthebents(piers)werefixedandweusedapinandrollerfortheabutmentsofthebridge.
Mid DeckDeflection (in) 9.299 9.33 0.33%
Maximum Arch Deflection (in) 16 591 17 21 3 60%
ArchPost 187 18663
D kCh d 52 5 2555
Weanalyzedthebridgeasbothatrussandaframe,andtheresultingdeflectionscanbeseeninthediagramsandtablestotheleft.
MaximumArch Deflection (in) 16.591 17.21 3.60%
MaximumDeckSpan Deflection (in) 17.246 17.25 0.02%
DeckChord 52.5 2555
MaximumMember AxialLoad (k) 6281.453 6282.1 0.01%
Maximum Member Moment (kft) 1517.394
Conclusion:
MaximumMember Moment (k ft) 1517.394
MaximumAxialStress(ksi) 26.372 26.7 1.23%
d (k )
Toconcludetheanalysis,wefoundthattherewereminordifferenceswhenthestructurewasmodeledasatrussoraframe.Forbothcases,dead
Collapse
MaximumBendingStress(ksi) 12.362
andliveloaddeflectionswerenotsignificantlydifferentfromthosecalculatedbytheoriginaldesigners,asperthereferences.
p
CEE4404 ComputerAnalysisofStructuresI p y
Team12: e
ChristianRivera ChristianRivera
YashGajbhiye YashGajbhiye
M d W h MandarWaghmare
Assumptions
Th t t l i f thi b ildi D F l R h Kh t i f hi
Assumptions
Fl l (b d l l ti )
The structural engineer of this building, Dr Fazlur Rahman Khan, wrote in one of his papers,
Th f di l b t t th f d l k th di l
Floor plan (beam and column location)
Member sizes
The use of diagonal members to correct the far spaced columns makes the diagonal
b th l t l l d th f th d t ll d l
Member sizes
Boundary Conditions
members themselves act also as columns and therefore they do not normally develop any
t i t d th i fl f f ll i d l d B th di l t b th
Boundary Conditions
The antennas on the top are not included
tension stresses, even under the influence of full wind load. Because these diagonals act both
i li d b ll t ki j ti f th i d h th ffi i f th
The antennas on the top are not included
as inclined members, as well as taking a major portion of the wind shear, the efficiency of the
t t l t l l i hi h f t l l b i l di s t r uc t ur a l s ys t e m ge ne r a l l y i s ve r y hi gh f o r t a l l bui l di ngs
AboutTheTower Scope
Located in Chicago IL
AboutTheTower
G BMD SFD d d fl d h f
Scope
Located in Chicago, IL.
Designed in 1966 by Skidmore Owings and
Generate BMD, SFD and deflected shapes of
this building using RISA 3D
INNER CORE OUTER CORE
Designed in 1966 by Skidmore, Owings and
Merrill
this building using RISA 3D
Study the behavior of the inner core and outer
INNER CORE OUTER CORE
Merrill
Construction Completed in 1970
Study the behavior of the inner core and outer
shell of the building
COMPARISON OF LOAD RESISTED BY INNER CORE COLUMN and ALL COLUMNS
Construction Completed in 1970
100story mixeduse complex
shell of the building
Study the crossbracing, a unique aspect of the
Vertical Load resisted by Vertical Load resisted Percent of Vertical Load y p
2,800,000 square feet of space
Typical Floor Plan Applied Live and Dead Loads
Study the cross bracing, a unique aspect of the
building.
y
INNER CORE Columns by ALL Columns Resisted by INNER CORE
Height of the building is 1127 feet
TypicalFloorPlan AppliedLiveandDeadLoads
g
Study the analysis of tall building Shear lag. LC Y (kips) Y (kips) Percent (%)
Top 49 floors are residential condominiums
1 191976.35 578401.85 33.19
Offices occupy the lower floors
Fi t t d t b k b ilt
GivenData
Modeling 2 289574.64 857413.41 33.77
First trussedtube skyscraper ever built
It consists of a hollow tube with central core
E t i di i
Modeling
Matlab R14 & Excel used to generate geometry
895 6 85 3 33
3 159933 75 481983 18 33 18 It consists of a hollow tube with central core
The inner core acts as column and resists 50%
Exterior dimensions
General idea of the structures geometry
Matlab R14 & Excel used to generate geometry
RISA v8 1
3 159933.75 481983.18 33.18
4 161466 33 489870 61 32 96
of Vertical Load and Negligible Lateral Load
General idea of the structure s geometry.
General idea of the loading
RISA v8.1
5000+ nodes
4 161466.33 489870.61 32.96
5 233421 07 694218 60 33 62
Crossbracing is used to stiffen the exterior and
t di t ib t d t f th l d th
General idea of the loading. 5000+ nodes
11300+ Members
5 233421.07 694218.60 33.62
6 236477 81 709993 46 33 31 to distribute and transfer the loads on the
columns evenly
11300 Members
6 236477.81 709993.46 33.31
columns evenly.
7 114165.77 344250.10 33.16
Results
8 117252.841 360024.96 32.57
X direction Zdirection Y direction
From the above deflected shape, it can be observed that the deflection is due to shear deformation. Deflection in is caused by shear force. Large
X direction Z direction Y direction
p , y g
deflection in z-dir because wind load has been conservatively calculated and tapering effect of the building is not considered. y p g g
The inner core resist negligible magnitude of lateral load. Outer shell resists all the lateral wind load. 34 % of Vertical Load is resisted by the Inner Core g g g y
OuterShell
InnerCore
Axial Force Max & Min Shear
Max & Min Moment
AxialForce Max&MinShear
Max&MinMoment
Axial Force
Max & Min Shear Max & Min Moment Deflected Shape of the building
AxialForce
Max&MinShear Max&MinMoment p g