See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340740628

Analytic method of structural analysis of modular buildings

Article  in  IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · April 2020

DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/775/1/012148

CITATIONS READS

0 376

3 authors, including:

Viacheslav Shirokov
Samara State Technical University
11 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Viacheslav Shirokov on 11 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Analytic method of structural analysis of modular buildings

To cite this article: V S Shirokov et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 775 012148

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 109.124.223.64 on 29/04/2020 at 08:00

CAEST 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 775 (2020) 012148 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/775/1/012148

Analytic method of structural analysis of modular buildings

V S Shirokov, T E Gordeeva and A Yu Bocharov

Samara State Technical University, 244, Molodogvardeyskaya str., Samara, 443001,
Russia

E-mail: ShirokovViacheslav@gmail.com

Abstract. The paper presents an analytical method of modular buildings calculation. It focuses
upon basic design assumptions that are accepted for modular buildings calculation. The authors
introduce their classification of loads and impacts, which are basic for modular buildings. They
also describe a method of determining inertial forces from seismic action designed on the basis
of a cantilever analytical model. Analytical and numerical methods for determining the forces
in the elements of modular units are further compared. It is revealed that the analytical method
strongly agrees with FEM (that is the finite elements method) with the error being 2-6%. The
analytical method is sufficiently accurate for engineering calculations.

1. Introduction
Building construction by using a modular technology is presently considered as one of the most
progressive directions in civil engineering [1-6]. Such buildings have a number of advantages
compared to the classical technology of construction: low labour intensity of construction, high speed
of installation, high quality of modules, etc. These advantages are especially important for the
construction of buildings in inaccessible regions with extreme climatic conditions, e.g. areas of oil and
gas fields development.
Despite the active implementation of modular buildings in Russia, there is no regulatory framework
for this type of structures design. This is primarily due to the lack of analytical methods for calculating
modular buildings. Currently, the finite element method (FEM) is used for the calculation of buildings
and structures. This method makes it possible to calculate the forces in any building structures.
However, FEM has a disadvantage associated with the need to know the exact geometry and cross-
sections of structural elements, while there is no direct connection between them. When using FEM,
the calculation of a private scheme is performed every time, so it is difficult to identify general
patterns in the work of forces modular buildings.
This paper presents an analytical method of modular buildings calculation that does not require
major calculation schemes in software systems using FEM. This method makes it possible to quickly
calculate the forces in the elements of modular units.

2. Materials and methods

A single modular unit is a system of two horizontal rectangular frames joined together by four corner
posts. All elements are rigidly connected to each other, which ensures stability of its geometrical
shape. Slabs are formed by beams, which are hinged to the elements of horizontal frames. Insulation is
laid between the beams. The beams are sheathed with galvanized steel or cement-chipboard. Figure 1
shows one modular unit design scheme.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
CAEST 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 775 (2020) 012148 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/775/1/012148

Figure 1. Modular unit design scheme. Figure 2. Calculated cross sections of the
elements.

There are certain assumptions accepted in determining the forces and natural vibration frequency of
modular buildings. They are as follows:
1. The coupling of all elements of the unit (posts and horizontal frames) with each other is
accepted as rigid.
2. The coupling of blocks with foundations is considered to be hinge-fixed at the corners of the
blocks.
3. The coupling of the blocks with each other is accepted as hinged at the corner points of the
horizontal frames.
4. The floor slab (the roof slab) is not deformed in its plane.

The following types of loads can be applied to a modular building:

• dead load, Pg;
• snow load, Ps;
• static wind load, Pws;
• wind pulsation, Pwp;
• imposed load, Pp;
• seismic load, Psc.

All these loads can be divided into three groups according to the nature of their impact:
• uniform distributed vertical load on the cross-beams (dead load, snow load and imposed load);
• uniform distributed horizontal load on the posts (static wind load);
• concentrated horizontal forces in the level of the cross-beam (inertial forces from wind
pulsation and seismic load).
The forces from the static vertical load (dead load, snow load and imposed load) are calculated by
construction mechanics methods or by means of calculation tables [7]. The calculation of natural
oscillation frequencies, inertial forces from wind pulsation, as well as determination of forces from
wind load is given in Papers [8, 9].
In determining the seismic load on modular buildings, a cantilever model with masses concentrated
in the slabs can be adopted. This scheme corresponds to the calculated dynamic model presented in the
Russian Building Design Standards for seismic areas (Figure 3).

2
CAEST 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 775 (2020) 012148 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/775/1/012148

Figure 3. Cantilever analytical model.

The calculated seismic load applied to Point k and corresponding to i-form of natural vibrations is
determined by Formula 1:
𝑗 𝑗
𝑆𝑖𝑘 = 𝐾0 ∙ 𝐾1 ∙ 𝑆0𝑖𝑘 , (1)
where K0, K1 are the coefficients determined by SP 14.13330.2018 depending on the purpose of the
structure and the allowable damage;
Sj0ik is the seismic load value for i-form of the structure natural vibrations, assuming elastic
deformation of the system:
𝑗 𝑗 𝑗
𝑆0𝑖𝑘 = 𝑚𝑘 ∙ 𝐴 ∙ 𝛽𝑖 ∙ 𝐾𝜓 ∙ 𝜂𝑖𝑘 , (2)
mjk is the mass of the building related to Point k;
A is an acceleration value, depending on the calculated seismic intensity;
βi is a dynamic response factor, depending on the category of soil and the period of natural
oscillations;
Kψ is a coefficient that takes into account the ability of buildings and structures to dissipate energy;
ηjik is a coefficient depending on the building or structure oscillations shape in i-form, from the
nodal point of the load application and the direction of the seismic load.
According to the adopted cantilever scheme, under the translational seismic load ηjik-coefficient is
determined by Formula 3:
𝑋𝑖 (𝑥𝑘 ) ∙ ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝑚𝑗 ∙ 𝑋𝑖 (𝑥𝑗 )
𝜂𝑖𝑘 = , (3)
∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝑚𝑗 ∙ 𝑋𝑗2 (𝑥𝑗 )
where Xi(xk) and Xi(xj) are the displacement of the building with its own fluctuations in i-form at the
considered point k and at all points j;
mj is the mass of the building assigned to Node j.
The described methodology, with account of Papers [8, 9], allows calculating forces in the
elements of modular buildings in an analytical form without drawing up complex design models while
using complicated software.

3. Analytical and numerical methods comparison

To confirm the correctness of the method, the forces determined analytically are compared to the
forces calculated by FEM. Lira Soft 2013 was used for the finite element method calculations . The
calculation model represented a spatial bar scheme. A universal spatial type was assigned for the
elements. Corner posts and cross-beams were divided into 8 finite elements to obtain more accurate
deformation patterns. The horizontal rigidity of the slabs was modeled by rods having the type of a
finite element of a spatial truss. The coupling of modular units with each other was modeled by

3
CAEST 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 775 (2020) 012148 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/775/1/012148

combining the displacements of angular points in three linear directions. The load was applied to the
longitudinal cross-beams in the form of a evenly distributed load per unit of length.
The building is a three-storey structure, with 7×3 units and 3×6×3.3(h) modules. The moment of
corner posts inertia I1 is 236.3 cm4, the moment of cross-beams I2 is 1090 cm4. The dead load on the
lower frame p1 is 120 kg/m2 and on the top frame p2 is 75 kg/m2. The imposed load p is 195 kg/m2.
The snow load S is 280 kg/m2, which corresponds to Snow Region IV. The wind load w corresponds
to Wind Region III. It is 38 kg/m2 with its terrain type adopted as "A". The area seismic intensity is
taken as 7 points, its soil type as II; the coefficient, taking into account the permissible damage K1
equals 0.25; the coefficient, taking into account the ability of buildings to dissipate energy Kψ is 1.3;
the coefficient K0 is 1.

Table 1. Analytical method and FEM comparison

Load type Stress type FEM Analytic Δ, %
M1 2.60 2.663 2.37
M2 2.04 2.091 2.44
M3 2.60 2.633 1.25
Dead load M4 2.04 2.091 2.44
M5 2.92 2.972 1.75
M6 5.34 5.437 1.78
N -20.50 -20.95 2.15
M1 1.59 1.632 2.57
M2 5.06 5.195 2.6
Snow load
M5 13.50 13.705 1.5
N -12.40 -12.60 1.59
M1 1.11 1.137 2.37
M2 3.53 3.618 2.43
Imposed load
M6 9.38 9.545 1.73
N -17.20 -17.55 1.99
M1 1.98 2.023 2.13
M2 1.32 1.329 0.68
Static wind load "Y" M3 1.85 1.893 2.27
M4 1.44 1.459 1.3
N -1.39 -1.36 -2.28
M1 2.14 2.194 2.46
M2 0.693 0.679 -2.06
Static wind load "X" M3 1.86 1.910 2.62
M4 0.96 0.963 0.31
N -2.28 -2.08 -9.62
M1 1.23 1.397 11.95
Wind pulsation "Y"
N -1.16 -1.302 10.91
M1 1.05 1.220 13.93
Wind pulsation "X"
N -2.00 -2.28 12.13
M1 1.61 1.511 -6.55
Seismic load "Y"
N -1.52 -1.40 -8.49
M1 1.64 1.570 -4.46
Seismic load "X"
N -3.13 -2.88 -8.72

Table 1 compares the forces obtained by analytical and numerical methods for different loads. The
comparison was carried out in the most loaded design sections: in corner posts and cross-beams
connections and in the middle of cross-beams (Figure 2). Table 1 demonstrates moment values in their
absolute (excluding marks).

4
CAEST 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 775 (2020) 012148 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/775/1/012148

Table 1 proves that the mechanical method of calculating the forces from static loads are of
complete convergence with the results obtained by FEM. The error in determining the forces for static
loads is approximately 2%. The forces calculated by different methods from the dynamic effects have
a greater discrepancy, it is about 10%. This discrepancy can be explained by some damping of the
spatial system in the calculation program while an elastic planar scheme is adopted in the analytical
solution.
In order to estimate the contribution of the error in determining the forces from dynamic impacts to
the total forces from load combinations, a number of calculations for different values of wind and
seismic loads were carried out (Figure 4). Geometric dimensions of the building and static loads (dead
load and imposed load) were left unchanged, the snow load was not taken into account. Calculated
load combinations have the form:
𝐶1 = 𝑃𝑔 + 𝑃𝑝 + 0,9 ∙ (𝑃𝑤𝑠 + 𝑃𝑤𝑝 ); (4)

𝐶2 = 0,9 ∙ 𝑃𝑔 + 0,5 ∙ 𝑃𝑝 + 𝑃𝑠𝑐 , (5)

where Pg is the dead load;
Pp is the imposed load;
Pws and Pwp are static and pulsation wind loads, respectively;
Psc is seismic load.
Figures 4 and 5 show that the contribution of the wind pulsation load to the total moment can reach
20%, of seismic load - 60%. The error in determining the forces of these impacts is 10%. Multiplying
the contribution by the error, we see that the wind pulsation adds 2%-error in the total value of the
moment, and the seismic load adds 6%. This error in determining the total force shows good
convergence of the methods. The analytical method is sufficiently accurate for engineering
calculations.

Figure 4. Moments in the bearing cross-section of the corner posts at different wind loads.

5
 CAEST 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 775 (2020) 012148 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/775/1/012148

Figure 5. Moments in the bearing cross-section of the corner posts at different seismic loads.

4. Conclusions
The research yielded the following conclusions:
1. The cantilever analytical model provided for determining the inertial forces from seismic
impact is correct for calculating modular buildings.
2. The error in determining the forces from static loads by the analytical method equals 2-3%.
3. The error of determination of forces from dynamic influences by the analytical method is
about 10%. Taking into account their total contribution, the error in determining the total force
is 2-6%.
4. The analytical method is sufficiently accurate for engineering calculations.

References
[1] Smith R E 2010 Prefab architecture: a guide to modular design and construction (Hoboken,
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)
[2] Dyachenko L Y, Dyachenko O S and Malashenko A S 2016 Bulletin of Prydniprovs'ka State
Academy Civil Engineering and Architecture 2 69-74
[3] Asaul A N, Kazakov Yu N, Bykov V L, Knyaz I P and Erofeev P Yu 2004 Theory and practice
of using prefab buildings in usual conditions and emergency situation in Russia and abroad
(Saint-Petersburg: Gumanistika)
[4] Mushinskiy A N and Zimin S S 2015 Construction of Unique Buildings and Structures 4 182–
193
[5] Zavrazhnov S I, Rachkov D S, Novikov M A and Yudin S V 2010 Vestnik MGSU 3 185-190
[6] Lacey A W, Chen W, Hao H and Bi K 2018 Journal of building engineering 16 45-56
[7] Bychkov D V 1957 Formulas and graphs for calculating frames (Moscow: Gosstroyizdat)
[8] Shirokov V S, Kholopov I S and Solovjov A V 2016 Procedia engineering Determination of the
frequency of natural vibrations of a modular building 153 655-661
[9] Shirokov V S, Soloviev A V and Gordeeva T E 2018 MATEC Web of Conferences (27RSP)
(TFoCE 2018) Determining internal forces in modular building elements under action wind
load 196

View publication stats