WELCOME TO
MY
PRESENTATION
MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
(HMAWBI)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERIG
Comparative Study of Diagrid Structural System and Conventional
Structural System for
High Rise Building
Title Defense
(16-11-2021)
Presented by
Mg Nay Myo
MEC-11
2
Outlines of Presentation
1. Introduction
2. Objectives of the Study
3. Scopes of the Study
4. Expected Outcomes
1. Introduction
The rapid growths of urban population
and consequent pressure on limited
space have considerably influenced the
residential development of city.
The high cost of land, the desire to avoid
a continuous urban sprawl, and the
need to preserve important agricultural
production have all contributed to drive
residential buildings upward.
As the height of building increase, the
lateral load resisting system becomes
more important than the structural
system that resists the gravitational
loads.
The lateral load resisting systems that
are widely used are:
Rigid frame,
Shear wall,
Wall-frame,
Braced tube system,
Outrigger system and
Tubular system.
Recently, Diagonal Grid Structural
system is widely used for tall steel
buildings due to its structural efficiency
and aesthetic potential provided by the
unique geometric configuration of the
system.
Diagrid structure consists of inclined
columns on the exterior surface of
building.
Conventional structure is the simple
frame structure with vertical columns.
The appearance of the diagrid structural
system occurred as a result of the
architectural appreciation of aesthetic
potential of diagonal members which
started with braced tube structures.
The famous examples of diagrid structure
all around the world are:
Diagrid System Building
(a) Swiss Re in (b) Hearst Tower in
London New York
Diagrid System Building
(c) Cyclone Tower in Asan (d) Capital Gate Tower in Abu
(Korea) Dhabi
Diagrid System Building
(e) Jinling Tower in China
2. Objectives of the study
To evaluate the diagrid structural system is
more efficient than the conventional framed
system.
To know diagrid structures generally do not
need high shear rigidity cores because
lateral shear can be carried by the diagonal
members located on the periphery.
To study diagrid structure system provides
more economy in terms of consumption of
steel and concrete as compared to simple
frame building.
3. Scopes of the study
In this study, Analysis of diagrid structural
system and conventional structural system
for 24 storey commercial building are
considered.
A regular floor plan is considered for both
structures. . The building data is kept same
for both models.
The proposed steel building which is in
seismic zone 2B is considered
All structural members are considered as
per AISC 360-16.
Lateral loadings such as earthquake and
wind are based on MNBC-2020 and ASCE
7-05.
Only superstructure is considered.
The interior frame of the diagrid
structures is designed only for gravity
load
Modeling, analysis and design of both
structures as well as framed structures
are carried out using ETABS software.
The support conditions are assumed as
hinged.
Secondary effects like temperature
variation is not considered in the design,
assuming small variation in inside and
outside temperature.
The comparative analysis results of
Conventional Structural System and
Diagrid Structural System in terms of
Time period, Storey shear, Displacement,
Inter-storey Drift.
24 Storey Buildings
Fig: 1-Elevation Fig: 2-Elevation
Diagrid Frame Conventional Frame
Optimum Angle For Diagrid Building
Fig: Typical Module
Geometry for θ =61˚
Fig.1: Typical Floor Plan Fig.2: 4 Story Module
4. Expected
Outcomes
In diagrid structural system, lateral loads
are resisted by axial action of diagonal
(inclined column) compared to bending of
vertical columns in framed tube structure.
As the building height increase, Time period
for Diagrid Structural System is lower
compared to Conventional Structural
System.
Storey shear for Diagrid Structure due to
earthquake load is lower compared to
Conventional Structure .
The displacement for Conventional
Structure due to wind load and earthquake
is higher compared to Diagrid structure.
The inter-storey drift for Conventional
Structure due to wind load and
earthquake is higher compared to
Diagrid Structure.
Perimeter “diagrid” system saves
approximately 20 percent of the
structural steel weight when compared
to a conventional moment-frame
structure.
Thank You
For Your Attention
