UNIT 31 ADVANCED

STRUCTURE
Kyaw Zayar Hein

SEPTEMBER 29, 2025

VUC
 Contents
Strategies to Resist Deflection due to Wind Loadings on Fixed Structures .............................. 2
Wind Loads on Fixed Structures ............................................................................................ 2

Calculation of the size type of lateral stiffening required to resist wind loading ................. 11

Methods to Resist or Manage Wind Loading. ...................................................................... 12

Relationship between Building Form and Wind Loading .................................................... 15

Wind Loading using ETABS 2020 Software ....................................................................... 17

Bending, Shear and Deflection for Complex Support Conditions ........................................... 21

Structural Connections in Relation to Complex Support Conditions .................................. 28

The use of different materials to determine their structural efficiency in managing bending,
shear and deflection .............................................................................................................. 32

Design complex columns and piled foundations ..................................................................... 34

The Axial Load Carrying Capacity of Complex Column .................................................... 34

Design Information for the Axial Load Carrying Capacity of Complex Column ................ 35

Calculation of Eccentric loading & Reinforced Concrete Piled Foundation ....................... 36

Design Information for RC Pile Foundation ........................................................................ 37

Benefits of Using Building Information Modelling (BIM) in The Structural Design ......... 38

The Most Effective Foundation Type for a Two-Storey RCC Building............................... 40

Design of Tensile Structures .................................................................................................... 42

Differences between Types of Tensile Structures................................................................. 42

Designing a simple tensile structure and comparing by using researches and calculations 45

Compare tensile structural solutions .................................................................................... 47

The Choice of a Tensile Structure ........................................................................................ 49

Reference ................................................................................................................................. 50
Strategies to Resist Deflection due to Wind Loadings on Fixed Structures

Wind Loads on Fixed Structures

By using Cantilever Method,

Let all columns are in same size,

( × ) ( × ) ( × )
Centroid, x = = 6.5 m
Axial Force in Column,
ΣM = 0, ( + )

(6 × 2) + (2.5P × 4) − (1.5P × 8) − (7.5P × 14) = 0

12 + 10P − 12P − 105P = 0

−107P = −12

P = 0.112 kN

N = 6.5P = 6.5 × 0.112 = 0.728 kN

N = 2.5P = 2.5 × 0.112 = 0.28 kN

N = 1.5P = 1.5 × 0.112 = 0.168 kN

N = 7.5P = 7.5 × 0.112 = 0.84 kN

Figure – 1st Floor Shear Force Direction

Vertical Shear Force in Beam,

F = 0.782 kN

F = 1.008 kN

F = 0.84 kN
Horizontal Shear Force in Column,

ΣM = 0, ( + )

(−0.728 × 2) + (H × 2) = 0

H = 0.728 kN

ΣM = 0, ( + )

(−0.28 × 2) − (0.728 × 4) + (H × 2) = 0

H = 1.736 kN

ΣM = 0, (↩, +)

(−1.008 × 5) + (0.168 × 3) + (H × 2) = 0

H = 2.268 kN

ΣM = 0, (↩, +)

(−0.84 × 3) + (H × 2) = 0

H = 1.26 kN

Moment in Column,

M = H × 2 = 0.728 × 2 = 1.456 kNm

M = H × 2 = 1.736 × 2 = 3.472 kNm

M = H × 2 = 2.268 × 2 = 4.536 kNm

M = H × 2 = 1.26 × 2 = 2.52 kNm

Moment in Beam,

M = F × 2 = 0.782 × 2 = 1.456 kNm

M = F × 2 = 1.008 × 2 = 2.016 kNm

M = F × 3 = 0.84 × 2 = 2.52 kNm

Axial Force in Column,

ΣM = 0, ( + )

(12 × 2) + (6 × 6) + (2.5P × 4) − (1.5P × 8) − (7.5P × 14) = 0

P = 0. .56 kN

N = 6.5P = 6.5 × 0. .56 = 3.64 kN

N = 2.5P = 2.5 × 0. .56 = 1.4 kN

N = 1.5P = 1.5 × 0. .56 = 0.84 kN

N = 7.5P = 7.5 × 0. .56 = 4.2 kN

Vertical Shear Force in Beam,
F = 2.912 kN

F = 4.032 kN

F = 3.36 kN

Horizontal Shear Force in Column,

ΣM = 0, ( + )

(−3.64 × 2) + (0.728 × 2) + (H × 2) = 0

H = 2.912 kN

ΣM = 0, ( + )

(−0.2912 × 4) + (0.28 × 2) − (1.4 × 2) + (H × 2) = 0

H = 6.944 kN

ΣM = 0, ( + )

(−4.032 × 5) + (0.84 × 3) − (0.168 × 3) + (H × 2) = 0

H = 9.072 kN

ΣM = 0, ( + )

(−3.36 × 3) + (H × 2) = 0

H = 5.04 kN
Moment in Column,

M = H × 2 = 2.912 × 2 = 5.824 kNm

M = H × 2 = 6.944 × 2 = 13.888 kNm

M = H × 2 = 9.072 × 2 = 18.144 kNm

M = H × 2 = 5.04 × 2 = 10.08 kNm

Moment in Beam,

M = F × 2 = 2.912 × 2 = 5.824 kNm

M = F × 2 = 4.032 × 2 = 8.064 kNm

M = F × 3 = 3.36 × 2 = 10.08 kNm

Figure – Foundation Shear Force & Axial Force

 Figure - Axial Force Diagram

Figure - Shear Force Diagram in Beam

Figure – Shear Force Diagram in Column

Figure – Moment Diagram in Column

Figure – Moment Diagram in Beam
Calculation of the size type of lateral stiffening required to resist wind loading

Figure - Wind Load on Fixed Structure

Design for 12kN,

The design strength of mild steel is 275 𝑘𝑁 𝑚𝑚

12 × 10
Effective area required = = 43.64 mm = 0.4364 cm
275

Since 80 × 80 × 6 equal angle which effective area is 9.4 cm .

∴ 𝐶ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑠𝑒 80 × 80 × 6 equal angle.

Methods to Resist or Manage Wind Loading.

Wind loading is considered one of the most serious problems in structural design. It is
caused when wind blows against buildings and creates pressure on surfaces. Positive pressure
is created on the windward side, while suction or uplift is created on the leeward side and roof.
If these pressures are not controlled, damage can be caused to walls, roofs, or even the whole
structure. For this reason, many methods are used by engineers so that wind loads can be
resisted or managed. The amount of wind load is decided by factors such as location, height,
exposure, and shape of the building. Wind direction must also be studied because the pressure
is not the same from all sides. Internal pressure is also produced if the wind enters the building
through openings. Because of this, roofs and walls are often pulled outward by suction. To
avoid this kind of damage, methods of resistance such as bracing, shear walls, rigid frames,
and strong foundations are used. In all designs, the goal is to make sure wind forces are carried
safely to the ground.

Strong structural forms are always required to resist wind loads. If a building is
designed only for vertical loads, collapse can be caused when horizontal wind forces act on it.
For this reason, rigid frames with strong joints are usually provided. These frames allow forces
to be transferred through the beams and columns without too much sway. Infill panels are
sometimes added between frame members so that more stiffness can be given to the structure.
In portal frame buildings, wind loads are carried by gable posts, roof bracing, and vertical
bracing to the ground. In masonry structures, walls that face the wind carry the force to the
perpendicular walls which provide stability. To prevent walls from being sucked out, ties are
given between walls, roofs, and floors. In tall buildings, the frame must be made stronger
because higher forces are received at greater heights. If a proper load path is not created, failure
may occur. That is why strong structural frames are always chosen for resisting wind loading.

Bracing and Shear Walls

Bracing and shear walls are widely used as methods for managing wind forces.
Diagonal members are placed in the structure so that triangles are formed, and these triangles
resist movement caused by wind. Different types of bracing, such as cross-bracing and K-
bracing, can be used depending on the design. By using bracing, sway is controlled, and
horizontal loads are safely transferred to the ground. Shear walls are also used for tall buildings.
These walls are made from reinforced concrete and are usually placed at the sides or around
staircases and lift cores. The walls act like vertical cantilevers that stand against the wind. If
they are not anchored strongly to the foundation, they can fail under heavy pressure. In many
modern buildings, shear walls are combined with bracing systems to make the design stronger.
Without these systems, tall buildings would twist, bend, or sway dangerously. That is why shear
walls and bracing are considered some of the best solutions for wind loading problems.

Building Shape, Orientation, and Aerodynamics

The shape of the building is always important in wind resistance. Flat walls and sharp
corners receive higher wind pressure compared to rounded or curved surfaces. If a building is
shaped with curves or slopes, the wind is allowed to pass more smoothly. Orientation is also
important because if the narrow side of the building faces the wind, less force is received. In
tall buildings, setbacks and tapered shapes are often used so that wind pressure is broken into
smaller parts. Roof design must also be considered because uplift is usually caused on flat or
gable roofs. Hipped roofs or sloped roofs allow the wind to pass with less suction. Internal
pressure is also managed by controlled openings so that the roof is not lifted suddenly. In very
tall towers, vortex shedding is caused by wind, and this effect is reduced by changing the shape
of the building. By using good aerodynamics, the overall wind pressure on a structure can be
reduced. Because of this, building form is always studied carefully before construction is
started.

Foundations and Connections

Foundations and connections are critical for resisting uplift forces caused by wind.
Strong winds can try to lift the whole structure from its base, and this risk must be prevented.
Deep foundations such as piles or mat foundations are usually used so that the building is
anchored firmly to the ground. Connections between the roof, walls, floors, and foundation
must also be made strong. If these connections are weak, suction from wind can pull off the
roof or push out the walls. In steel structures, strong bolts and welds are used to keep members
joined firmly. In lightweight buildings, hold-down anchors and hurricane straps are added so
that parts are not blown away. By making every connection strong, a continuous load path is
provided from the roof to the ground. If the load path is broken, damage can occur even if the
frame is strong. That is why proper anchorage and connection details are always considered an
important part of wind resistance.
 In conclusion, many methods are used to resist and manage wind loading in buildings.
Structural forms with rigid frames provide the first line of stability. Bracing systems and shear
walls give additional resistance and prevent dangerous sway. The shape, height, and orientation
of a building are designed so that wind pressure is reduced before it reaches the structure.
Strong foundations and secure connections make sure that forces are carried to the ground
without failure. In tall buildings, extra systems such as dampers can also be used so that sway
is reduced for occupant comfort. All these methods are used together because one method alone
is not enough. Wind is an unpredictable force, so it must be considered in every stage of design.
When these methods are used, buildings can be kept safe and stable even in strong storms.
Therefore, proper wind load management is always a necessary part of structural engineering.
Relationship between Building Form and Wind Loading
The relationship between building form and wind loading has always been studied
carefully in structural design. Wind is a natural force that acts horizontally on buildings, and
its effect depends greatly on the size, shape, and orientation of the structure. If the form of the
building is not planned properly, very high pressure may be received on walls, roofs, and
corners. Because of this, buildings have often been damaged during storms or cyclones when
poor forms were used. The direction of wind also changes the way forces act, and this makes
the problem more complex. For example, a tall flat wall facing the wind will receive a much
greater load than a narrow or curved side. Therefore, the importance of form in wind resistance
has been recognized by architects and engineers, and special forms are often selected to reduce
pressure. The main idea is that the effect of wind can be controlled not only by structural
elements but also by the outer shape of the building itself.

Flat and tall forms are usually exposed to the greatest wind pressure. When a tall
rectangular tower is built, the wind hits the front face strongly, and large vortices are created at
the sides and behind. These vortices cause suction and uplift, which add extra stress to walls
and roofs. The higher the building is, the greater the wind load becomes, because wind speed
increases with height. This is why tall skyscrapers must be designed with careful attention to
their external form. If the form is too flat and broad, discomfort from sway and risk of structural
damage may be caused. Many failures in the past have been linked to such designs, where flat
faces acted like sails against the wind. It is clear that height and flatness increase vulnerability,
and this relationship has always been observed in both small and large buildings.

Rounded and aerodynamic forms are known to reduce wind pressure effectively. When
a building has curved surfaces, the wind is guided smoothly around the structure, and strong
suction is not created. Cylindrical, spherical, and elliptical forms are therefore more stable
against wind loading compared to flat and rectangular forms. In very tall buildings, twisted or
tapered forms are also used so that vortex shedding is disturbed and oscillation is reduced. For
example, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai was given a Y-shaped plan with setbacks at different
heights, and this was done to reduce wind effects. The Taipei 101 tower in Taiwan was designed
with a stepped form to break up wind loads. These examples show how form is chosen not only
for architectural beauty but also for reducing wind pressure. The closer a building form is to an
aerodynamic profile, the less stress is transferred to the structural frame.
 The orientation of a building is also closely related to wind load behavior. When the
narrow side of the building is placed facing the prevailing wind, smaller loads are received,
while the broad face receives much larger loads. For this reason, the orientation of the plan is
studied in the design stage. Roof form also has a strong effect on wind loading. Flat roofs and
gable roofs are often subjected to high uplift because the wind passes quickly over the top and
creates suction. In contrast, hipped roofs and sloped roofs allow the wind to pass more easily,
reducing uplift forces. Openings in the form must also be controlled, because if wind enters the
interior, high internal pressure can be created, which increases the uplift on the roof. By
carefully selecting the orientation and roof form, the overall pressure on the structure can be
managed more effectively.

Integration of Form With Structural Systems

The form of the building cannot resist wind loading on its own, but it works together
with structural systems to reduce forces. When an aerodynamic form is used, smaller loads are
applied to the frame, bracing, and foundations. This means less material is required and greater
safety is achieved. If the form is poor, then very heavy bracing, shear walls, or dampers must
be installed, which increases cost. Because of this, architects and engineers often cooperate to
design forms that balance strength, economy, and appearance. For tall buildings, the use of
aerodynamic form has become a standard practice, as it reduces both sway and occupant
discomfort. The structural frame is always linked with the form, and the total resistance to wind
is achieved only when both are designed together.

In conclusion, the relationship between building form and wind loading is very strong
and direct. Flat and tall forms usually receive high wind pressure, while rounded, tapered, or
aerodynamic forms reduce it. The orientation of the building and the design of the roof also
influence how wind forces act on the structure. Internal pressure caused by openings is linked
to form as well, and it must be controlled. By using proper forms, the total load on the structural
system can be reduced before it is transferred to frames, shear walls, and foundations. Modern
skyscrapers have already shown how setbacks, twists, and curves can be used to manage wind
effects. Because of this, form is not treated only as an architectural choice but also as a
structural solution. The closer the form is designed to resist wind, the safer and more stable the
building becomes.
Wind Loading using ETABS 2020 Software

In this study, ETABS 2020 software was used to analyze the effects of wind loading on
a twelve-storey reinforced concrete (RCC) building. The chosen model represents a modern
mid-rise building with irregularities in both plan and elevation, which made it an appropriate
case study to investigate the influence of building form on wind loading. Structural modeling
was carried out to evaluate how the geometry of the building interacts with lateral wind forces,
and the analysis was conducted in accordance with the Myanmar National Building Code
(MNBC 2025) and ASCE 7-05 provisions. This approach provided useful insights into the
relationship between building configuration and wind-induced response.

Structural Modeling and Load Definition

The structural model of the building was first created in ETABS. Beams, slabs, and
columns were defined using reinforced concrete properties, and story levels were generated up
to twelve floors. A rigid diaphragm constraint was assigned at each floor to ensure realistic
lateral load distribution. After the geometry was completed, load cases and load combinations
were defined. Dead load and live load patterns were added, while wind loads were specified
according to the MNBC 2025 and ASCE 7-05 criteria. Local wind speed, exposure category,
importance factor, and gust factor were defined based on the project’s assumed geographical
location.

Subsequently, wind pressures in both the X and Y directions were calculated and
assigned to the building as lateral forces. To simulate realistic foundation behaviour, all column
base points were defined as hinged supports. This assumption allowed the model to capture
base rotation effects, which are important in the study of lateral wind behaviour.
 Figure – 3D model of the proposed 12-storey RCC building

Initial Analysis and Observation of Torsion

The first analysis of the structure was carried out without shear walls. The results
showed that the building experienced considerable torsional response under wind loading. The
roof (RF) level deflections in both X and Y directions exceeded the allowable limits for
translation and rotation specified by the codes. The torsional effect was traced to the irregularity
and unsymmetrical layout of the building, which caused eccentricity between the centre of
mass and the centre of rigidity. These findings confirmed that the geometry of the building
form directly increased its susceptibility to wind forces.
 Figures – Wind X & Wind Y direction deflection checks

Application of Shear Walls

To mitigate the excessive torsional behaviour, reinforced concrete shear walls were
introduced into the model. The walls were placed symmetrically, especially along the building
edges, to balance stiffness and reduce eccentricity. These shear walls provided greater torsional
rigidity and lateral strength, helping to redistribute wind loads more evenly across the building.
After the shear walls were modelled, the structure was re-analyzed under the same loading
conditions.

Figure – 2D and 3D models of the proposed building shape with added shear walls
Improved Performance and Deflection Results

The analysis after adding shear walls showed a significant improvement. Deflections
at the roof level in both X and Y directions were reduced to within allowable code limits. The
torsional response decreased considerably, and the overall lateral stability of the structure was
improved. The results confirmed that the introduction of shear walls was an effective solution
for reducing torsional effects in buildings with irregular and unsymmetrical forms.

Figures: Wind X & Y direction deflection checks – first and second points after solution

The study demonstrated that the form of a building has a direct influence on its response
to wind loading. For the twelve-storey RCC building analyzed using ETABS 2020, torsional
irregularities were identified as a major issue due to the unsymmetrical geometry. By
introducing shear walls in symmetric locations, the torsional response was reduced and the
building performance under wind loads was brought within allowable code limits. This
procedure highlights the importance of considering both building form and structural solutions
such as shear walls when designing mid-rise RCC buildings to resist wind forces.
Bending, Shear and Deflection for Complex Support Conditions

Bending & Shear in Complex Support Conditions

Fixed End Moment,

ωl 2 × (3)
M = = = +1.5 kN
12 12

ωl 2 × (3)
M = = = −1.5 kN
12 12

Pb a 3 × (1) × 2
M = = = +0.67 kN
l 3

Pa b 3 × (2) × 1
M = = = −1.33 kN
l 3

M = +2 kN

Member 𝑰 𝒌𝒓𝒆𝒍
𝒍

5𝐼
AB 5
3

3𝐼
BC 3
3
Distribution Factor,

𝑘 5
DF = = = 0.625
𝑘 +𝑘 5+3

𝑘 3
DF = = = 0.375
𝑘 +𝑘 3+5

Joint A B C

Member AB BA BC CB CD

𝒌𝒓𝒆𝒇 5 5 3 3 -

DF 1 0.625 0.375 1 -

FEM +1.5 -1.5 +0.67 -1.33 +2

Balance -1.5 +0.519 +0.311 -0.67

CO +0.259 -0.75 -0.335 +0.156

Balance -0.259 +0.678 +0.407 -0.156

CO +0.339 -0.129 -0.078 +0.204

Balance -0.339 +0.129 +0.078 -0.204

Final 0 -1.053 +1.053 -2 +2

𝚺𝐌𝐀 = 𝟎, ( + )

1.053 + (6 × 1.5) − 3R =0

R = 3.35 kN

R +R =6

R = 2.65 kN

𝚺𝐌𝐂 = 𝟎, (+ )

2 − (3 × 1) − 1.053 + 3R =0

R = 0.684 kN

R +R =3

R = 2.32 kN
 S.F.D

B.M.D

Shear Force Diagram & Bending Moment Diagram for Uniformly Distributed Beam
 S.F.D

B.M.D

Shear Force Diagram & Bending Moment Diagram for Concentrated Loaded Beam
 S.F.D

B.M.D

Shear Force Diagram & Bending Moment Diagram for Concentrated Load at free End Beam
Shear Force Diagram

Bending Moment Diagram

Maximum Deflection for Uniformly Distributed Loaded Beam

𝜔𝑙 2×3 0.422
∆ = = = m
384 𝐸𝐼 384 𝐸𝐼 𝐸𝐼

Maximum Deflection for Concentrated Loaded at any Point Beam

2𝑃𝑎 𝑏 2 × 3 × 10 × 2 × 1 326.5
∆ = = = m
3 𝐸𝐼(3𝑎 + 𝑏) 3 𝐸𝐼(3 × 2 + 1) 𝐸𝐼

Maximum Deflection for Cantilever Beam, Concentrated Load at free End

× × .
∆ = = = m
Structural Connections in Relation to Complex Support Conditions

A structural connection is the way in which different parts of a structure, such as beams,
columns, and trusses, are joined together to form a stable and continuous system. The main
purpose of a structural connection is to transfer loads safely from one member to another so
that the entire structure can withstand forces such as weight, wind, and vibration. Without
proper connections, even the strongest materials cannot perform well because the structure
would lack stability and unity. Connections are considered one of the most critical elements in
structural engineering since they provide strength, stiffness, and safety to buildings, bridges,
and other engineering works.

There are several types of structural connections, but two of the most common methods used
in modern construction are

 Bolt connections

 welding connections.

Both serve the same purpose of joining structural members, yet they differ in design,
application, and performance. Bolt connections rely on mechanical fastening, where bolts and
nuts secure members together, while welding connections rely on fusing metals using heat.
Each method has its own advantages depending on the type of structure, the required strength,
and the construction environment. Choosing between them requires an understanding of their
unique qualities.

A bolt connection is a method of joining two or more structural members by inserting

bolts through pre-drilled holes and tightening them with nuts to form a strong joint. This
connection is widely used in steel structures such as bridges, towers, and industrial buildings
because it is simple, reliable, and easy to assemble on-site. Bolts provide flexibility in design
because they can be adjusted or replaced if needed, which makes them suitable for both
temporary and permanent structures. One of the major advantages of bolt connections is that
they do not require highly skilled labor compared to welding, and they can be installed quickly
even in difficult weather conditions.

Bolt connections can be divided into different types, but two common categories are
ordinary bolt connections and friction bolt connections. Ordinary bolt connections work by
bearing action, where the bolt itself resists the force by pressing against the sides of the hole.
This type of connection is commonly found in simple steel frame buildings and is easy to
construct. Friction bolt connections, on the other hand, rely on the friction between the
connected plates and the clamping force provided by the tightened bolt. This type of connection
is stronger and is often used in heavy steel structures such as bridges and high-rise buildings
where greater safety and load transfer are required

An ordinary bolt connection, also known as a bearing type connection, allows some
movement in the joint because the bolts resist the load mainly through bearing against the hole
edges. These connections are simple and economical, which makes them common in many
structural applications where high precision is not critical. For example, in small trusses, light
industrial sheds, and temporary structures, ordinary bolt connections are a practical choice.
However, their limitation is that they are less suitable for structures subjected to heavy dynamic
loads or vibrations, as the slight movement can affect long-term performance.

Ordinary Bolt

A friction bolt connection, also known as a slip-critical connection, transfers forces

through frictional resistance between the surfaces of the connected plates. This is achieved by
tightening the bolts to a specific torque, which generates a strong clamping force. Because the
load is carried by friction, the connection prevents slip and provides high stiffness and
reliability. Friction bolt connections are used in structures where safety and durability are very
important, such as in bridge construction, high-rise steel frames, and structures exposed to
earthquake or wind forces. Although they require careful installation and sometimes higher
costs, they offer superior performance in demanding conditions.

Friction Bolt
 A welding connection is a method of permanently joining two pieces of metal by
applying heat and sometimes pressure to melt the edges of the members, which then fuse
together as they cool. Welding is widely used in modern steel construction because it creates a
continuous joint that has high strength and rigidity. Unlike bolt connections, welded joints do
not require holes or extra fastening materials, which saves space and reduces stress
concentration. Welding is often used in factories where precision and quality control can be
ensured, but it can also be applied on-site with skilled labor and the right equipment.

Welding connections are classified into different types, but two of the most common
are fillet welds and butt welds. A fillet weld is used to join two surfaces at a right angle, such
as when a beam is connected to a column flange. This type of weld is simple, versatile, and
widely used in many structures. A butt weld, on the other hand, is used when two members are
placed in the same plane and their edges are joined together end-to-end. Butt welds are strong
and provide a smooth finish, making them suitable for pressure vessels, pipelines, and
structural frames that need high integrity and clean appearance. Both types of welds play
important roles in modern engineering because they provide flexibility in design and high
structural performance.
 In conclusion, structural connections are the backbone of stability in engineering
structures, as they transfer forces safely between members and ensure overall strength. Bolt
connections and welding connections are two of the most common types, each with unique
characteristics and applications. Ordinary bolt connections are simple and economical, while
friction bolt connections provide higher strength and safety in demanding conditions. Welding
connections, with their permanent and continuous nature, are highly effective in creating rigid
and strong joints, especially through fillet and butt welds. Together, these methods highlight
the importance of choosing the right type of connection for the right project. A well-designed
structural connection not only enhances safety but also contributes to the durability and
efficiency of the entire structure.
The use of different materials to determine their structural efficiency in managing
bending, shear and deflection

The efficiency of a structural material is always judged by how it performs under the
three major effects of loading: bending, shear, and deflection. The use of different materials
allows engineers to make decisions not only based on strength but also on stiffness, durability,
cost, and sustainability. Each material responds differently to these demands, and this is why a
study of bending, shear, and deflection is important in choosing the most suitable option for
any project.

For bending resistance, the main property considered is the ability of a material to carry
compressive and tensile stresses. Steel is very strong in both compression and tension, so it is
able to resist large bending moments with relatively small cross-sections. Reinforced concrete
combines concrete in compression with steel reinforcement in tension, and this composite
action provides good resistance against bending. Timber, on the other hand, has much lower
tensile strength compared to steel and concrete, so timber beams must be made larger and
deeper to achieve the same bending capacity. It can therefore be seen that structural efficiency
in bending is highest for steel, moderate for reinforced concrete, and lowest for timber.

For shear resistance, the internal shear strength of a material plays the controlling role.
Steel, being very strong in shear, does not usually require additional measures to resist shear
stresses in beams. Concrete is weak in shear, which is why reinforcement in the form of stirrups
is placed in reinforced concrete beams to prevent diagonal tension cracks. Timber provides
moderate shear resistance, but failure along the grain can be a problem, and this reduces its
efficiency. For this reason, steel is considered to be the most efficient for resisting shear, while
concrete requires reinforcement and timber requires careful design against shear cracking or
splitting.

Deflection is another important measure of efficiency, as serviceability requirements

are often more critical than strength requirements. The key material property that influences
deflection is the modulus of elasticity (E), which is highest in steel and lowest in timber. Steel
members generally experience small deflections even with slender proportions. Reinforced
concrete has a much lower stiffness, and cracking under load reduces its effective stiffness
further, which increases deflection. Timber has an even smaller modulus of elasticity, so beams
made of timber deflect significantly unless they are designed to be deep or closely spaced. This
shows that steel is most efficient for deflection control, while concrete and timber require larger
section sizes to remain within serviceability limits.

In comparing all three materials, steel emerges as the most structurally efficient when
long spans and heavy loads are considered. Its high strength-to-weight ratio and stiffness make
it ideal for bridges, tall buildings, and industrial structures. Reinforced concrete, while less
efficient in pure structural terms, provides advantages of durability, fire resistance, and
relatively low cost of raw materials, which makes it very widely used in buildings and
infrastructure. Timber, although weaker and more flexible, is lightweight, renewable, and easy
to work with, which makes it an efficient material in terms of sustainability and construction
speed, even if larger sections are required.

The selection of material for structural use is therefore not only a question of strength
but also of balance. Efficiency in bending, shear, and deflection must be weighed alongside
economic, environmental, and practical considerations. For projects requiring long spans and
slim structures, steel is justified as the best choice. For most general construction, reinforced
concrete provides a balanced and economical solution. For light structures or sustainable
projects, timber may be chosen despite its lower efficiency in bending and deflection.

In conclusion, structural efficiency is determined by how well a material manages

bending, shear, and deflection, and this efficiency varies greatly between steel, concrete, and
timber. Steel is the most efficient material for strength and stiffness, concrete provides
durability with moderate efficiency, and timber provides sustainability with lower strength but
advantages in weight and renewability. The correct choice depends on the scenario and the
balance between performance, cost, and environmental impact.
Design complex columns and piled foundations

The Axial Load Carrying Capacity of Complex Column

e = 250 mm = 0.25 m

e = 300 mm = 0.3 m

Design axial Force= 230 + 75 + 175 + 100 = 580 kN

Use 203 x 203 x 52 universal Column,

M = (230 − 75)0.25 = 38.75 kNm

M = (175 − 100)0.3 = 22.5 kNm

For (254 × 254 × 89) Universal Column,

(A = 114 cm , S = 1230 cm , Z = 379 cm , r = 6.52 cm)

𝑙 4000 × 10
Slenderness ratio = = = 61.35
r 6.52 × 10

P = 213 N/mm

P = 217 N/mm
σ = 275 N mm

𝐴P = 114 × 10 × 217 × 10 = 2473.8 kN

P S = 213 × 10 × 1230 × 10 = 262 kN

σ Z = 275 × 10 × 379 × 10 = 104.2 kN

+ + < 1.0

+ + < 1.0

. .
+ + < 1.0
. .

0.598 < 1.0

∴Universal Column (254 × 254 × 89) is adequate.

Design Information for the Axial Load Carrying Capacity of Complex Column

Structural Steel Section Size= UC 254 × 254 × 89

Yield Strength = 275 MPa

Tensile Strength = 530 MPa

Width = 255.9 mm

Depth = 260.4 mm

Thickness of Web= 10.5 mm

Flang Thickness = 17.3 mm

Calculation of Eccentric loading & Reinforced Concrete Piled Foundation

N = 1000 kN

From Q-Q,

Σx (3 × 1) + (3 × 1.5)
x = = = 0.833 m
n 9

From T-T,

Σy (3 × 0.5) + (3 × 1.5)
y = = = 0.667 m
n 9

e = 0.7 − 0.667 = 0.033 m

e = 0.2 − (1 − 0.833) = 0.033 m

I = Σ𝑦 = 3(0.667) + 3(0.167) + 3(0.833) = 3.5 m

I = Σ𝑥 = 3(0. .833) + 3(0.167) + 3(0.667) = 3.5 m

 . .
P = ± .y ± .x

× . × .
= ± .y ± .x
. .

= 111.11 ± (9.43 y ) ± (9.43 x )

P = +111.11 − (9.43 × 0.667) + (9.43 × 0.833) = 112.67 kN

P = +111.11 − (9.43 × 0.667) − (9.43 × 0.167) = 103.25 kN

P = +111.11 − (9.43 × 0.667) − (9.43 × 0.667) = 98.53 kN

P = +111.11 − (9.43 × 0.167) + (9.43 × 0.833) = 117.39 kN

P = +111.11 − (9.43 × 0.167) − (9.43 × 0.167) = 107.96 kN

P = +111.11 − (9.43 × 0.167) − (9.43 × 0.667) = 103.25 kN

P = +111.11 + (9.43 × 0.833) + (9.43 × 0.833) = 126.82 kN

P = +111.11 + (9.43 × 0.833) − (9.43 × 0.167) = 117.39 kN

P = +111.11 + (9.43 × 0.833) − (9.43 × 0.667) = 112.67 kN

Design Information for RC Pile Foundation

Pressed Pile Size = 200 × 200 mm

Pile Type = Pre − cast square Pile

Working Load = 300 kN

Ultimate Capacity = 600 kN

Benefits of Using Building Information Modelling (BIM) in The Structural Design

The introduction of Building Information Modelling (BIM) has changed the way
structural design is carried out. In traditional workflows, structural drawings and calculations
were prepared separately, which often led to repetition of work and a higher chance of errors.
With BIM, a digital model of the structure is created, where all information about geometry,
materials, and loads is stored in one place. This means that changes made in the model are
automatically reflected in the drawings and schedules, which increases efficiency and accuracy
throughout the design process.

One of the most important benefits of BIM in structural design is improved coordination
and collaboration. Structural engineers, architects, and services engineers are able to work on
the same model, which reduces conflicts between structural elements and other systems. For
example, potential clashes between beams, ducts, and columns can be detected early in the
design stage. This avoids costly changes on-site and ensures that the structural design integrates
smoothly with other disciplines.

Another major benefit is greater accuracy in structural analysis and design. BIM models
can be directly linked with structural analysis software, so loads, boundary conditions, and
material properties are transferred automatically. This reduces manual input errors and saves
time. The engineer is able to run calculations, test alternative designs, and check performance
quickly. The link between design models and analysis software ensures that the structure is
both safe and optimized.

Visualization and communication are also greatly improved by BIM. Three-

dimensional models of the structural system can be generated, which allows engineers to
explain their design more clearly to clients, contractors, and other team members. Complex
details such as reinforcement layouts or connection designs can be shown in 3D rather than
relying only on 2D drawings. This improves understanding and reduces misinterpretation of
design intent.

Another important benefit of BIM is its ability to support cost and time efficiency.
Quantities of structural materials such as concrete, reinforcement, and steel sections can be
extracted automatically from the BIM model. This supports more accurate cost estimation and
better project planning. When changes are made to the design, the quantities and schedules are
updated instantly, which helps to control costs and time. This also allows the structural engineer
to make better decisions during the design phase.

Finally, BIM supports better lifecycle management of structures. The model created
during the design stage can be handed over to the owner or facility manager after construction.
All structural information such as material properties, design loads, and maintenance
requirements is stored in the model. This makes future modifications and inspections easier
and ensures that the structural performance is managed throughout the life of the building.

In summary, the use of BIM in the structural design workflow provides many benefits
including improved collaboration, higher accuracy in analysis, better visualization, cost and
time savings, and improved lifecycle management. These advantages make BIM an essential
tool for modern structural engineering practice, ensuring that structures are designed more
efficiently, constructed more smoothly, and managed more effectively during their service life.
The Most Effective Foundation Type for a Two-Storey RCC Building

The selection of a foundation type for a two-storey reinforced concrete (RCC) building
depends on several important factors, including ease and speed of construction, economics,
safety, and environmental impact. Foundations are responsible for transferring structural loads
to the ground, and their design must therefore be based on both structural requirements and soil
conditions. For buildings of two storeys, the loads are generally moderate, and in many cases,
shallow foundations can be used effectively.

The most common and effective solution for this type of building is the isolated spread
footing, sometimes combined with strip or combined footings where columns are closely
spaced. This foundation type is considered effective because it is simple to design and easy to
construct. Excavation is shallow, reinforcement is straightforward, and concreting requires only
basic equipment. Construction is therefore completed quickly and at a relatively low cost
compared with deeper foundations. From the perspective of safety, spread footings are reliable
when soil conditions are adequate, as loads are transferred evenly to the ground. From an
environmental perspective, less excavation and less concrete are required, which reduces both
resource use and carbon emissions.

In situations where columns are placed in rows or where loads are distributed along
walls, strip footings or combined footings are often preferred. These types still belong to the
shallow foundation category and share the advantages of ease, speed, and economy. They also
reduce the risk of differential settlement by providing continuous support. As with isolated
footings, the environmental footprint is relatively low because excavation is limited and
materials can be used efficiently.

When soil conditions are weaker or settlement risks are higher, a raft (mat) foundation
may provide a more suitable option. A raft spreads the loads of the building across the entire
footprint, which helps to reduce settlement and increases overall stability. Safety is therefore
improved in marginal ground conditions. However, raft foundations require more concrete and
reinforcement than isolated footings, and construction takes longer. This increases cost and
environmental impact, but these disadvantages can be justified if poor soil conditions make
shallow footings unsafe.
 In cases where very weak soils or high groundwater levels are present, pile foundations
may be necessary. Piles transfer the loads of the building to deeper, more competent soil layers.
This option offers the highest level of safety against settlement and instability but is also the
most expensive. Specialist equipment is required, and construction time is increased.
Environmental impacts are higher due to noise, vibration, and greater energy use. For a typical
two-storey building, piles are rarely used unless geotechnical investigation shows that shallow
solutions are not possible.

In conclusion, the most effective foundation type for a two-storey RCC building under
normal soil conditions is the isolated spread footing, supplemented by strip or combined
footings where required. This solution offers ease and speed of construction, low cost, adequate
safety, and relatively low environmental impact. Raft foundations become effective when soils
are weak but not too deep, while pile foundations are reserved for cases where no other option
provides adequate safety. The final choice must always be guided by soil investigation, but for
most two-storey RCC buildings, spread footings remain the most practical and efficient
solution.
Design of Tensile Structures

Differences between Types of Tensile Structures.

Tensile structures are defined as structures that carry loads mainly through tension
without significant compression or bending. They are often used for roofs, large-span
coverings, and lightweight enclosures. The PowerPoint divides tensile structures into three
main categories: Linear Tensile Structures, Three-Dimensional Tensile Structures, and Surface-
Stressed Tensile Structures. Each of these types uses different principles, materials, and forms
to resist loads. Their main differences are found in how the tensile forces are managed and how
compression is transferred into the ground.

Linear Tensile Structures

In linear tensile structures, the main load is carried by members that are always in
tension. The vertical loads are resisted by cables, while towers or pylons are used to provide
compression support. The most common examples are suspension bridges and cable-stayed
bridges. In suspension bridges, the deck is hung below main suspension cables that pass over
tall towers and are anchored at both ends. Vertical suspender cables connect the main cable to
the deck. In cable-stayed bridges, straight cables connect directly from the tower to the deck,
often in a fan-like pattern. The key difference in linear tensile structures is that the tensile force
is carried by linear cables, while compression is carried by the masts or towers. These structures
are efficient for very long spans, but they require very strong anchors and towers to resist the
tension forces.

Three-Dimensional Tensile Structures

Three-dimensional tensile structures use a network of tensioned elements that are

stabilized by masts or other compression supports. Instead of cables running only in straight
lines, these structures form complex spatial arrangements. Examples include tensegrity
structures and tensairity structures. In tensegrity systems, compression members (like struts)
are kept apart by a continuous net of cables in tension, creating a floating effect where members
do not touch each other. In tensairity systems, air pressure is used inside tubes or membranes
to stabilize compression elements, giving high strength with very low weight. The main
difference from linear tensile structures is that here the tension network forms a three-
dimensional spatial system, not just cables stretched in one direction. These structures are often
used in arenas, pavilions, and experimental designs.
Surface-Stressed Tensile Structures

Surface-stressed tensile structures rely on large surface membranes that are held in
tension. Instead of cables alone, the whole fabric or surface works as the tension-bearing
member. Examples include pre-stressed membranes, gridshells, and fabric structures. In
membrane structures, fabric or synthetic material is pretensioned so that even after loads like
wind or snow act, the surface stays stable. Gridshells work with double curvature from lattice
grids (often wood or steel), which provide strength in a similar way to fabric. Fabric tensile
structures are made with special coated fabrics that can span large areas without intermediate
supports, making them ideal for roofs, shading systems, and exhibition spaces. The difference
from linear and three-dimensional structures is that the surface itself acts in tension, not just
cables or discrete members.

Main Load-
Compression
Type Definition Carrying Examples Applications
Transfer
Element

Suspension
Structures where Cables Long-span
Linear Towers, bridges,
members are (suspension bridges,
Tensile pylons, or Cable-
mainly in linear cables, transportation
Structures masts stayed
tension stays) structures
bridges

Structures formed Sports arenas,

Three- Cables, Tensegrity
by spatial tension pavilions,
Dimensional tendons, or Central masts structures,
systems supported experimental
Tensile air-inflated or struts Tensairity
by compression or artistic
Structures membranes structures
elements designs

Stadium roofs,
Structures where shading
Surface- Supported by Pre-stressed
surfaces Membranes, systems,
Stressed pillars, membranes,
(fabric/membrane) fabrics, exhibition
Tensile frames, or Gridshells,
carry loads in grids spaces,
Structures cabling Fabric roofs
tension decorative
coverings
 The differences between types of tensile structures are mainly based on the form of
tension elements and the way compression is resisted. Linear tensile structures depend on
cables and towers, three-dimensional structures use spatial networks of tension and
compression, while surface-stressed structures rely on continuous membranes or grids. Each
type has unique structural behavior, examples, and applications. By understanding these
differences, designers can choose the correct tensile system for long-span bridges, stadium
roofs, shading systems, or artistic lightweight forms.
Designing a simple tensile structure and comparing by using researches and calculations

1100m

80m

Central span, L = 1100m

Cable rise’s Height, D = 80m
Ultimate strength of cables = 1590 N/mm2
Concrete anchor blocks = 42.0m x 20.0m x 12.0m
Cable from towers’ slope = same angle both sides of tower

Dead load (cables + deck) Gk = 147kN/m

Imposed load, Qk =20.3 kN/m
𝑟 =5
(a) The design load for the suspended part of the structure =?
Design load = (1.4 x 147) + (1.6 x 20.3) = 238.28 kN/m

(b) The total compression load, P =?

𝜔L

L
RCH RCV
𝜔𝐿 𝜔𝐿
2 2

.
RCV = = = 131054 𝑘𝑁

Load in tower = 2 x 142968 = 262108 kN

(c) Maximum force, T in a cable =?
.
RCH = = = 450498.125 𝑘𝑁

Maximum force in cable = 𝑅 + 𝑅

The above equation is divided by 2 because of two cables.

( . )
Maximum force per cable = = 234 588.11 kN

Maximum cable force, T = 234 588.11 kN

(d) Design of the cable =?

Design stress = = = 318 𝑁/𝑚𝑚

. ×
Area of cable required = = = 737.698 × 10 𝑚𝑚

Area of cable =

737.698 x 10 =

d = 969.157 mm (Use 1000 mm diameter Cable).

Compare tensile structural solutions

800m

150m

Central span, L = 800m

Cable rise’s Height, D = 150m
Concrete anchor blocks = 42.0m x 20.0m x 12.0m
Cable from towers’ slope = same angle both sides of tower
Number of main cables= 2
Ultimate strength of cables = 1590 N/mm2
Dead load (cables+ deck) Gk = 147kN/m
Imposed load, Qk =20.3 kN/m
𝑟 =5
(a) The design load for the suspended part of the structure =?
Design load = (1.4 x 147) + (1.6 x 20.3) = 238.28 kN/m

(b) The total compression load, P =?

𝜔L

L
RCH RCV
𝜔𝐿 𝜔𝐿
2 2
 .
RCV = = = 95 312 𝑘𝑁

Load in tower = 2 x 95 312 = 190 624 kN

(c) Maximum force, T in a cable =?

.
RCH = = = 127 082.67 𝑘𝑁

Maximum force in cable = 𝑅 + 𝑅

The above equation is divided by 2 because of two cables.

( . )
Maximum force per cable = = 79426.67 kN

Maximum cable force, T = 79426.67 kN

(d) Design of the cable =?

Design stress = = = 318 𝑁/𝑚𝑚

. ×
Area of cable required = = = 249.769 × 10 𝑚𝑚

Area of cable =

249.769 x 10 =

d = 564 mm
Use 600 mm diameter Cable.
The Choice of a Tensile Structure

The research and calculations demonstrated how span length and cable rise affect the
structural behaviour of tensile systems. In the first case, the central span of 1100 m with a rise
of 80 m produced very high forces. The horizontal component was found to be more than
450,000 kN, and the maximum cable tension per cable was calculated as about 234,588 kN.
The tower compression was also large, reaching more than 262,000 kN. A cable diameter of
approximately 1000 mm was required to resist the design forces. These values confirm that
very large forces are involved, and such magnitudes can be managed effectively only by
suspension bridge systems. In suspension bridges, the load is carried by massive main cables
which are anchored securely in large concrete blocks, while the towers carry the vertical
components. This arrangement makes suspension bridges the only practical choice for very
long spans above 1000 m.

In the second case, the central span of 800 m with a rise of 150 m showed more
favourable results. The horizontal force was much smaller at about 127,000 kN, and the
corrected maximum tension per cable was found as 79,427 kN. The tower compression was
also lower, with a total of 190,624 kN. The required cable diameter was about 564 mm, which
is significantly smaller than the first case. These values indicate that the geometry was more
efficient, because the larger rise reduced the horizontal force and lowered the required cable
area. For this span length, both suspension and cable-stayed systems are structurally possible.
However, a cable-stayed solution is often preferred for spans of around 800 m, because it
reduces the size of anchors and allows easier construction by segmental deck erection. The
suspension option remains feasible, but it would not be the most economical choice when
compared to the cable-stayed system.

It can be concluded that the correct choice of tensile structure depends strongly on the
span length and the cable rise. For the 1100 m span with 80 m rise, the suspension bridge is
justified as the most appropriate solution, because only this system can handle the very large
cable forces and tower compression that were calculated. For the 800 m span with 150 m rise,
the forces were much smaller, and the cable-stayed solution is justified as the best option, since
it reduces anchor demands and construction complexity while still ensuring safety and
efficiency. These results show that tensile structure selection must always be guided by
engineering analysis and calculation, supported by experience from proven structural systems.
Reference

Cobb, F. (2020) Structural Engineer’s Pocket Book: British Standards Edition. CRC Press.

Hulse, R. and Cain, J. (2009) Structural Mechanics: Worked Examples. Macmillan

International Higher Education.

McKenzie, W. (2015) Design of Structural Elements. Macmillan International Higher

Education.

Mosley, W.H., Hulse, R. and Bungey, J.H. (2012) Reinforced Concrete Design. Macmillan
International Higher Education.

Nageim, H.K. and Durka, F. (2003) Structural Mechanics. Pearson Education.

Ozelton, E.C. and Baird, J.A. (2008) Timber Designers’ Manual. John Wiley & Sons.

Reynolds, C.E., Steedman, J.C. and Threlfall, A.J. (2007) Reinforced Concrete Designer’s
Handbook. 11th edn. CRC Press.

Seward, D. (2014) Understanding Structures. Macmillan International Higher Education.