DESIGN OF A FOUR STORY

STRUCTURAL FRAME
Presented by:

Chathurika Gamage

DESIGN PROBLEM
Utilize moment resistant frame for analysis
Four stories
Plan dimensions 100ft x 60ft
First floor consists of a parking lot, grocery store
and a boutique
Three upper floors to be utilized as office space

*Dimension are in ft

*Dimension are in ft

COLUMNS

W610x307

BEAMS

W500x300

8 LOAD CASES FOR ANALYSIS

CASE Number

Factors

1.4D

1.25D+1.5L+0.5S

0.9D+1.5L+0.5S

1.25D+1.5L+0.4W

0.9D+1.5L+0.4W

1.25D+1.5S+0.5L

0.9D+1.5S+0.5L

1.25D+1.5S+0.4W

0.9D+1.5S+0.4W

10

1.25D+1.4W+0.5L

11

0.9D+1.4W+0.5L

12

1.25D+1.4W+0.5S

13

0.9D+1.4W+0.5S

14

D+E+0.5L

15

D+E+0.25S

DEAD LOADS
Due to self-weight
Super-imposed dead load
Loads due to heating/cooling systems
Exterior wall loads

EXTERIOR WALL LOADS

Load Type
Interior finish

Load (kPa)
0.1

Studs

0.07

Insulation

0.03

Sheathing

0.067

Siding

0.07

Other fixtures

0.03

TOTAL

0.367

ROOF LOADS
Load Type

Load (kPa)

Mechanical duct
allowance (ceiling)

0.19

Insulating Concrete
per 10mm

0.06

TOTAL

0.25

FLOOR LOADS
Load Type

Load (kPa)

Normal density concrete

topping, per 10mm of
thickness

0.24

22mm Hardwood flooring,

on sleepers, clipped to
concrete
Interior partitions
Carpets

0.24
1
0.1

Sprinklers

0.03

TOTAL

1.61

LIVE LOAD
First Floor
Upper Floors

4.8kPa
2.4kPa

SNOW LOAD
2kPa according to NBCC

Assumptions:
1) 1 in 50 probability of exceedance per year
2) Normal roof with no drift
3) Slope of zero

SEISMIC LOADS
0.07kPa according to NBCC

Assumptions:
1) Class C Soil
2) Normal importance

SEISMIC LOADS (CONTINUED)

SEISMIC LOADS ACTING AT

SEISMIC LOADS AT 12.2M IN THE ZDIRECTION

LIMIT STATE DESIGN

Moment Adequacy of Beams and Columns
Shear Adequacy of Beams
Buckling of Columns

MOMENT ADEQUACY OF BEAMS

AND COLUMNS
Beams are supported
Columns are unrestrained

but L<Lu

Since beams and columns were both Class 1 sections

Mr = Fy Zx
Type

Mr

Beams

2690kNm

Columns

3080kNm

SHEAR ADEQUACY OF BEAMS

Vr = 2770kN

BUCKLING OF COLUMNS

kL/r = 19mm

Using the Handbook for Steel Construction:

Cr= 9857kN

ADEQUACY OF MATLAB
PROGRAM
SAP Analysis of un-factored dead Load
Equilibrium analysis of joints

SAP ANALYSIS

MATLAB RESULTS

F1

F2

F3

M1

M2

M3

Nodes

KN

KN

KN

KN-m

KN-m

KN-m

80

-0.308

120.787

-1.058

-1.812

0.000

0.685

76

-0.307

154.586

-0.053

-0.105

0.000

0.683

72

-0.306

154.588

0.054

0.109

0.000

0.680

68

-0.303

120.777

1.060

1.816

0.000

0.673

79

-0.637

211.470

-1.059

-1.815

0.000

1.234

75

-0.637

245.277

-0.054

-0.107

0.000

1.232

71

-0.635

245.286

0.053

0.106

0.000

1.229

67

-0.633

211.540

1.059

1.813

0.000

1.222

78

-0.373

256.989

-1.065

-1.835

0.000

0.788

74

-0.372

290.761

-0.061

-0.131

0.000

0.786

70

-0.371

290.738

0.046

0.084

0.000

0.783

66

-0.365

256.793

1.054

1.795

0.000

0.770

77

1.308

157.921

-1.074

-1.892

0.000

-2.020

73

1.309

191.357

-0.078

-0.199

0.000

-2.022

69

1.311

189.753

0.077

0.098

0.000

-2.026

65

1.319

143.572

1.100

1.836

0.000

-2.042

SAP RESULTS

F1

F2

F3

M1

M2

M3

Nodes

KN

KN

KN

KN-m

KN-m

KN-m

80

-0.412

121.471

-1.026

-1.552

0.000

0.912

76

-0.411

156.756

-0.032

-0.066

0.000

0.912

72

-0.411

156.757

0.032

0.061

0.000

0.912

68

-0.411

121.480

1.026

1.546

0.000

0.912

79

-0.901

211.500

-1.024

-1.550

0.000

1.721

75

-0.901

246.782

-0.029

-0.063

0.000

1.721

71

-0.901

246.781

0.035

0.064

0.000

1.721

67

-0.901

211.501

1.028

1.548

0.000

1.722

78

-0.441

255.425

-1.024

-1.546

0.000

0.952

74

-0.441

290.711

-0.030

-0.060

0.000

0.952

70

-0.441

290.710

0.034

0.067

0.000

0.952

66

-0.441

255.434

1.027

1.552

0.000

0.952

77

1.754

158.742

-1.029

-1.536

0.000

-2.691

73

1.754

194.010

-0.037

-0.053

0.000

-2.691

69

1.754

194.012

0.027

0.074

0.000

-2.692

65

1.754

158.718

1.023

1.562

0.000

-2.692

JOINT EQUILIBRIUM

Joints 1, 3 and 11 were

analysed

JOINT 1
F1
Member (kN)

SUM

F2

F3

M1

M2

M3

(kN)

(kN)

(kNm)

(kNm)

(kNm)

97

4.639

19.191

0.469

0.004

-2.844

13.172

13

0.846

38.838

14.962

-41.335

2.841

0.005

-5.485

-58.029

-15.431

41.331

0.003

-13.177

JOINT 3
F1
Member (kN)

F3

M1

M2

M3

(kN)

(kN)

(kNm) (kNm) (kNm)

-3.245

20.594

-0.067

-0.001

1.136

13.815

-1.245

-0.003

3.946

21.562

19

-0.895

59.904

34.587 -82.835

-2.976

-0.005

82.839

-0.009

7.355

99
SUM

F2

3.005 -94.313 -33.275

0

-0.961 -28.912

JOINT 11
F1
Member (kN)

F3

M1

M2

M3

(kN)

(kN)

(kNm) (kNm) (kNm)

-4.511

20.491

-0.025

0.001

2.001

13.477

-2.027

-0.009

6.196

19.992

20

0.836

40.611 -29.144

21.289

-2.496

0.000

21

-1.136

50.373

14.226 -49.230

-3.208

0.007

27.949

-0.006

7.120

107
SUM

F2

2.809 -124.952 -10.832

0

-0.486 -27.120

CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Meets limit state requirements
There were many limitations to this project. Limit state
design was done at a very basic level.
Since the beams are supported by concrete slabs, other limit
state evaluations such as punching shear adequacy for
columns should be considered. Diagonal members were not
included for simplicity.
It is recommended that the MATLAB program be modified
to handle diagonal members in order to obtain a more
structurally adequate system.
Feasibility study should be performed to ensure minimal
cost. This would include changing the beam sizes to make
sure minimal amount of material is used. Studies such as
this can be used for preliminary analysis of the frame
system when creating multi story, complex structures.