Structural Behavior Comparison

Oct 13, 2025 by talynt.org 43 views

Comparative Study of Maximum Deviation Moment Resisting Frame (MRF) and Dual System due to Earthquake Forces with the Same Concrete Volume

In the field of civil engineering, understanding the behavior of earthquake-resistant structures is crucial for ensuring public safety and minimizing damage to buildings. Two systems that are often compared in this context are Moment Resisting Frame (MRF) and Dual System (DS). MRF is a system consisting of columns and beams as horizontal structural elements, while dual systems combine columns, beams, and shear walls in their design. The main difference between the two systems lies in the way they respond to earthquake loads. MRF is designed to receive 100% earthquake loads that occur, while DS only bears 25% of the total earthquake load, with the rest being borne by shear walls. This article aims to compare MRF and DS behavior when receiving an earthquake load with a similar concrete volume.

Research Methodology

For this analysis, the element method was used to help the ETABS program. This study involved modeling structures for two variations of building height, namely 15 floors and 20 floors. Modeling results show that concrete needs for both systems have a minimum difference, which is around 2.48%. The static load applied includes a living and dead load, with a specific value of 0.96 kN/m² for the roof, 2.4 kN/m² for the floor, and the dead load is 37.37 kN/m for outside beams and 22,638 kN /m for deep beams.

Earthquake Style Analysis

The analysis continued by applying three different earthquake recordings, adjusted to the conditions of the earthquake in Medan, namely Northridge, Loma, and Kobe. From this analysis, the fundamental periods of each system were obtained. For the 15-storey model, the MRF fundamental period is 2.034 seconds, while for DS is 1.51 seconds. For the 20-storey model, the MRF fundamental period increased to 2.794 seconds, and DS to 2.141 seconds.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis shows that the dual system system has a greater shear force compared to the moment resisting frame. This can be explained by the role of shear walls in an effective DS in holding the lateral force arising from the earthquake. However, the structure and weight ratio of the beam/column reinforcement in the MRF system is higher than DS.

This difference becomes important in the context of structural design. MRF, with a greater deviation value, may require tighter planning to minimize damage during earthquakes. On the other hand, although DS has a higher shear force, a more efficient load distribution on the shear wall makes it more stable in earthquake load conditions.

Structural Behavior Comparison

The comparison of structural behavior between MRF and DS is crucial in understanding their performance under earthquake loads. The results show that MRF has a higher deviation value compared to DS. This can be attributed to the fact that MRF is designed to receive 100% earthquake loads, while DS only bears 25% of the total earthquake load. However, the structure and weight ratio of the beam/column reinforcement in the MRF system is higher than DS.

Load Distribution Comparison

The load distribution between MRF and DS is another important aspect to consider. The results show that DS has a more efficient load distribution on the shear wall, making it more stable in earthquake load conditions. This can be attributed to the fact that DS is designed to distribute the load more evenly across the structure, reducing the risk of damage during earthquakes.

Conclusion

This study provides in-depth insight into the comparison between the moment of resisting frame and dual system in the context of earthquake-resistant structural design. The understanding obtained from this analysis can help engineers in making better decisions when designing buildings that will be resistant to earthquake disasters, especially by considering the same concrete volume. Thus, this research not only increases our understanding of both systems but also provides practical direction in better and safer civil engineering practices.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations can be made:

MRF systems should be designed with tighter planning to minimize damage during earthquakes.
DS systems should be designed with a more efficient load distribution on the shear wall to ensure stability in earthquake load conditions.
Engineers should consider the structural behavior and load distribution of both MRF and DS systems when designing buildings that will be resistant to earthquake disasters.

Future Research Directions

This study provides a comprehensive comparison of MRF and DS systems in the context of earthquake-resistant structural design. However, there are several areas that require further research:

The effect of different earthquake recordings on the behavior of MRF and DS systems.
The impact of varying building heights and structural configurations on the behavior of MRF and DS systems.
The development of new design methods and techniques for MRF and DS systems that can improve their performance under earthquake loads.

By addressing these research gaps, engineers can develop more effective and efficient design methods for MRF and DS systems, leading to safer and more resilient buildings that can withstand earthquake disasters.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Comparative Study of Maximum Deviation Moment Resisting Frame (MRF) and Dual System due to Earthquake Forces with the Same Concrete Volume

In this article, we will address some of the most frequently asked questions about the comparative study of Maximum Deviation Moment Resisting Frame (MRF) and Dual System (DS) due to earthquake forces with the same concrete volume.

Q: What is the main difference between MRF and DS systems?

A: The main difference between MRF and DS systems lies in the way they respond to earthquake loads. MRF is designed to receive 100% earthquake loads that occur, while DS only bears 25% of the total earthquake load, with the rest being borne by shear walls.

Q: What is the significance of the fundamental period in the context of earthquake-resistant structural design?

A: The fundamental period is a critical parameter in earthquake-resistant structural design. It represents the time it takes for a structure to complete one cycle of vibration. A longer fundamental period can lead to more severe damage during earthquakes.

Q: How do MRF and DS systems compare in terms of structural behavior?

A: The analysis shows that MRF has a higher deviation value compared to DS. This can be attributed to the fact that MRF is designed to receive 100% earthquake loads, while DS only bears 25% of the total earthquake load.

Q: What is the impact of load distribution on the behavior of MRF and DS systems?

A: The load distribution between MRF and DS is another important aspect to consider. The results show that DS has a more efficient load distribution on the shear wall, making it more stable in earthquake load conditions.

Q: What are the recommendations for engineers based on the findings of this study?

A: Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations can be made:

MRF systems should be designed with tighter planning to minimize damage during earthquakes.
DS systems should be designed with a more efficient load distribution on the shear wall to ensure stability in earthquake load conditions.
Engineers should consider the structural behavior and load distribution of both MRF and DS systems when designing buildings that will be resistant to earthquake disasters.

Q: What are the future research directions based on the findings of this study?

A: This study provides a comprehensive comparison of MRF and DS systems in the context of earthquake-resistant structural design. However, there are several areas that require further research:

The effect of different earthquake recordings on the behavior of MRF and DS systems.
The impact of varying building heights and structural configurations on the behavior of MRF and DS systems.
The development of new design methods and techniques for MRF and DS systems that can improve their performance under earthquake loads.

Q: What are the implications of this study for the design of earthquake-resistant buildings?

A: This study provides in-depth insight into the comparison between the moment of resisting frame and dual system in the context of earthquake-resistant structural design. The understanding obtained from this analysis can help engineers in making better decisions when designing buildings that will be resistant to earthquake disasters, especially by considering the same concrete volume.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: This study has several limitations, including:

The analysis was limited to two variations of building height, namely 15 floors and 20 floors.
The study only considered three different earthquake recordings, adjusted to the conditions of the earthquake in Medan.
The study did not consider the impact of varying structural configurations on the behavior of MRF and DS systems.

By addressing these limitations, future studies can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the behavior of MRF and DS systems in the context of earthquake-resistant structural design.