Asee peer logo

Influence of Boundary Conditions on Building Behavior

Download Paper |

Conference

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Location

Seattle, Washington

Publication Date

June 14, 2015

Start Date

June 14, 2015

End Date

June 17, 2015

ISBN

978-0-692-50180-1

ISSN

2153-5965

Conference Session

Project-Based Experiences in Architectural Engineering

Tagged Division

Architectural

Page Count

9

Page Numbers

26.959.1 - 26.959.9

DOI

10.18260/p.24296

Permanent URL

https://peer.asee.org/24296

Download Count

548

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Joshua Michael Raney California Polytechnic State University: San Luis Obispo

visit author page

Josh is currently a Master's student studying Architectural Engineering at Cal Poly: SLO with the intention of working for a design firm on the west coast.

visit author page

biography

Peter Laursen P.E. California Polytechnic State University

visit author page

Dr. Peter Laursen, P.E., is an Associate Professor of Architectural Engineering at the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), where he teaches laboratory courses on the analysis and design of structural systems.

visit author page

biography

Cole C McDaniel California Polytechnic State University

visit author page

Dr. Cole McDaniel, P.E., is a Professor of Architectural Engineering at the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), where he teaches courses on the analysis and design of structural systems with a focus on seismic behavior.

visit author page

biography

Graham C. Archer P.Eng California Polytechnic State University

visit author page

Dr. Graham Archer, P.Eng., is a Professor of Architectural Engineering at the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), where he teaches courses on the analysis and design of structural systems.

visit author page

Download Paper |

Abstract

Influence of Boundary Conditions on Building BehaviorWhen architectural engineering students graduate and enter the workforce they will be facedwith analyzing and designing a variety of structural systems. Often times great care is taken inaccurately representing the structural members until it comes to the boundary conditions at thebase of the building. Most students are exposed to fixed boundary conditions, pinned boundaryconditions and roller boundary conditions in their undergraduate courses. These idealizedboundary conditions simplify the analysis, however, choosing which condition is appropriate foran actual building is not always clear. In addition, building boundary conditions can have a largeinfluence on the predicted building performance and associated design. Engineers arechallenged with accurately modeling buildings including the boundary conditions and, therefore,facing this challenge in their undergraduate studies is important for students so that they canmake informed decisions as engineers.In order to expose students to the challenges of accurately modeling boundary conditions,students were asked to determine the appropriate boundary conditions for a nine foot tall two-story steel wide-flange moment frame with the columns bolted to a concrete floor through a steelbase plate. The students predicted the steel frame response by computational models and handcalculations. Students were encouraged to complete the hand calculations first to provide abaseline for the computational models. After predicting the steel frame response the studentsconducted dynamic experiments to measure the actual response of the frame. Since the frame isrelatively simple to model the difference between the student predictions and the experimentalresults were almost entirely due to the behavior/modeling of the boundary conditions. Prior toany experimentation 80% of the students considered a fixed base boundary condition to beappropriate while 20% of the students considered a pinned base boundary condition to beappropriate. Once the structure was dynamically excited by the students, the students discoveredthat the boundary conditions were somewhere between a fixed base and a pinned base boundarycondition and that the boundary conditions were different in the column strong axis direction andthe column weak axis direction.The students enjoyed the opportunity to compare their predictions of the steel frame response tothe dynamic experimentation results. In addition, this exercise challenged students to check theircomputer analysis results with quick hand calculations as well as consider how to appropriatelymodel boundary conditions for actual buildings that fall somewhere in between the idealizedconditions they focus on in their undergraduate courses.

Raney, J. M., & Laursen, P., & McDaniel, C. C., & Archer, G. C. (2015, June), Influence of Boundary Conditions on Building Behavior Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24296

ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2015 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015