See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307909875

Architrave: Advanced Analysis of Building

Structures Integrated in Computer-Aided
Design

Chapter January 2014

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7790-3_17

CITATIONS READS

0 26

7 authors, including:

Agustin Perez-Garcia Fernando Gmez-Martnez

Universitat Politcnica de Valncia Universitat Politcnica de Valncia
26 PUBLICATIONS 69 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 73 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Adolfo Alonso-Dur Jos M. Alonso

Universitat Politcnica de Valncia Universitat Politcnica de Valncia
30 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS 64 PUBLICATIONS 396 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Heuristic and non heuristic Structural Optimization View project

Structural Information Modelling (SIM) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fernando Gmez-Martnez on 08 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Architrave: Advanced Analysis of Building
Structures Integrated in Computer-Aided Design

A. Prez-Garca, F. Gmez-Martnez, A. Alonso, V. Hernndez, J. M. Alonso,

P. de la Fuente and P. Lozano

Abstract This paper describes the characteristics of a new high performance com-
puting application (Architrave v.2011) designed for structural analysis of buildings
or civil engineering structures. To check its performance against the well-known
and widespread computer programme, SAP2000 v.15, a set of test has been
designed for static and dynamic analysis. Calculation speed, tools, usability, cost
and graphic efficiency have been measured and compared on standalone. The results
show that Architrave v.2011 is more than five times faster than SAP2000 v.15 while
performing structural analysis, its graphic interface and visualization performance
is ten times more efficient and the cost of a standalone license is less than a fifth.
Keywords Structural analysis Cloud computing SAP2000 Architrave software

1Introduction

Structural analysis of buildings, or civil engineering structures, is the process to

determine the response of a structure to different prescribed applied loads. This
response is usually measured by the stresses and movements that experiences any
point of the structure.
Depending of the changing nature of the external load applied to the building,
a static or dynamic structural analysis will be needed. In a linear static analysis,

A.Prez-Garca() F.Gmez-Martnez A.Alonso

Dep. Mecnica de los Medios Continuos y Teora de Estructuras,
Universitat Politcnica de Valncia, Camino de Vera s/n,
46022, Valencia, Spain
e-mail: fergomar.arq@gmail.com
V.Hernndez J.M.Alonso P.de la Fuente P.Lozano
Institute of Instrumentation for Molecular Imaging,
Universitat Politcnica de Valncia, Camino de Vera s/n,
46022, Valencia, Spain
C. Llinares-Milln et al. (eds.), Construction and Building Research, 123
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7790-3_17, Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
124 A.Prez-Garca et al.

where the external loads (dead loads, snow load, etc.) do not change along the time,
the Stiffness Method [1] requires to solve a large-scale system of linear equations,
as the main computational problem. However, in a linear dynamic analysis [2],
where the external loads (earthquake, wind load, etc.) do change along the time,
the second order differential equations in time that governs the motion of structural
problems must be solved. Direct time integration algorithms are techniques usually
applied for solving this computationally demanding equation of motion, using a
time step-by-step numerical integration procedure that provides the response of the
structure along the time. In general, they involve the solution of a large dimension
linear equations system at each time increment. The accuracy of the results depends
on the time increment employed.
In order to find the most appropriate structural design, according to distinct cri-
teria of safety, economic limitations or construction constraints, a large amount of
different configurations have to be simulated, following a trial-error process. Each
of these alternatives is defined by the structural engineer varying the size of the
structural elements, the material that composes them (concrete, steel, etc.), or the
external loads applied. As an example, the Spanish Earthquake-Resistant Construc-
tion Standards (NCSE-02) demands a building to be analysed with at least five
different representative earthquakes. Once all these structural alternatives are simu-
lated, the results must be interpreted, maybe giving place to a new iteration in this
trial-error scheme. Obviously, this situation largely increases the computational cost
of the problem.
Therefore, the realistic 3D structural dynamic analysis of large scale structures
can demand an important computational power, give place a huge volume of data
and become one of the most time consuming phases in the design cycle of a building
or a civil engineering structure. For this reason, this analysis has been traditionally
solved by introducing a variety of simplifications (unsuitable for complex struc-
tures) in order to reduce the problem size and the volume of the data, and obtain the
results in reasonable simulation times.
Architects and structural engineers need thus powerful software applications
able to simulate efficiently the accurate response of the structure. High Performance
Computing (HPC) techniques provide powerful numerical and programming tools
to develop applications able to simulate, efficiently and in a realistic way, large scale
structures, in very reasonable response times. However, the commercially available
applications usually offer traditional approaches, computing sequential structural
analysis on the users local machine. As a result, the size and the complexity of the
structure to be analysed, the type of structural analysis employed and the total num-
ber of the different structural solutions or even earthquakes evaluated are limited by
the performance of the computational resources available for the users.
In this paper, a new advanced software environment for the design, 3D linear
static and dynamic analysis and visualisation of buildings and civil engineering
structures, Architrave v.2011 [3], is presented and its features, capabilities and
performance are compared with the well-known and widespread computer pro-
gramme, SAP2000 v.15 [4].
Architrave: Advanced Analysis of Building Structures Integrated  125

2Architrave. Developers, Components, Features

andCapabilities

Architrave has been developed at the Universitat Politcnica de Valncia and is the
result of the collaboration between two research groups: CiD (Departamento de
Mecnica de los Medios Continuos y Teora de Estructuras) and GRyCAP (Grid
y Computacin de Altas Prestaciones, Instituto de Instrumentacin para Imagen
Molecular).
Architrave is a Windows based computer programme composed of three inde-
pendent components that closely interact among them: Architrave Design, Archi-
trave Analysis and Structural Simulator.

2.1The Design Component

Architrave Design is a graphic user interface based on VisualLISP/OpenDCL lan-

guage and implemented as a plug-in of AutoCAD. The structural model is de-
fined using AutoCAD graphic and non-graphic entities. Mechanical properties are
embodied on such entities. Model edition and visualization is performed using the
powerful and well-known capabilities of AutoCAD. The model can include: bars,
two or three-dimensional finite elements, supports, releases, materials, user cross
sections, loads and load cases definition. A model generator based on prototypes
creates: trusses, grids, 3D frames, slabs, shells and walls. Structural surfaces are
automatic and dynamically meshed using Delaunay procedures.

2.2The Analysis Component

Architrave Analysis is an interactive graphic user interface application created for

visualizing and managing the structural model. The high performance 3D graphic
engine can manage on real time many views (wireframe or solid dynamic render-
ing) of the very complex models. This module manages the calculation procedures
and its results (internal forces, movements, stress, etc.). It also performs, on de-
mand, the edition of the model and the process of sizing/checking bars dimensions.
This component can run as a standalone application or connected to a local
network. However, recently it has been implemented as a Cloud Service [5, 6] to
perform on-demand structural analysis over the Windows Azure-based Cloud infra-
structure provided by the EC VENUS-C [7] project. Thanks to the high throughput
and reliability of this system it will be possible to solve larger scale problems, in-
crease the complexity of the structure to be analysed, and carry out a larger number
of realistic dynamic simulations without simplifications.
126 A.Prez-Garca et al.

Fig. 1 Reference building of 45-story, conceptual design and floor surface reduction

2.3The Structural Simulator

A batch Message Passing Interface (MPI) based on parallel application is used by

the Analysis Component to simulate the response of the structure by means of the
Finite Element Method. On this component have been implemented high perfor-
mance computing procedures for simulating: Linear static and Modal, Response
Spectrum and Time History dynamic behaviour.

3Characteristics of the Tested Structure

An ad hoc structure has been designed for a 45-story building that resembles the
Willis Tower [8] (formerly named and still commonly referred to as Sears Tower) at
Chicago, Illinois. See Fig.1B. The model includes bars and two-dimensional finite
elements arranged appropriately to bear, statically and dynamically, the loads
gravity, wind and earthquakeprescribed by the Spanish codes of practice (CTE
and NCSE-02) for such kinds of buildings.
The structure is composed of a 3D portal frame structure solved with steel beams
and columns working as a bunch of structural tubes (Fig.1a). The floors are slabs of
Architrave: Advanced Analysis of Building Structures Integrated  127

Fig. 2 Steel bars (beams/columns) and reinforced concrete finite elements (slabs/walls/stairs)

reinforced concrete as well as the stairs. The vertical communication core is materi-
alized as reinforced concrete walls serving as vertical structure and lateral bracing.
See Fig.2. The spans and story heights are moderated (8 and 3.5m respectively).
The foundation consists of a deep system of piles not included on this model.
Two structural models were defined for the analysis. The first (Fig.3a) combined
the steel 3D portal frame with slabs and stairs defined as 2D finite elements of re-
inforced concrete. The second one (Fig.3b) included the same 3D portal frame and
the stair/elevators shafts represented as 2D finite elements of reinforced concrete.
The dynamic response of the structure was simulated under the influence of a
seismic load of 15s of duration, with a simulation time increment equal to 0.01s.
These results were stored every 0.05s. The accelerations used for the time history
were those registered on 1999 earthquake occurred at Turkey.

4Compared Performance

Both structural models were analysed using Architrave v.2011 and SAP2000 v.15 in
order to study their functionality and efficiency. Table1 shows the characteristics of
the computers used to compare the performance.
The main aspects taken into account on the compared assessment were:
1. Cost of licensing and software maintenance.
2. Computation time required for analysing large scale or complex structures under
static linear conditions.
3. Implemented features on high performance computing for managing large sets
of structural simulations under dynamic loads (Modal, Response Spectrum and
Time History).
4. Tools provided for each computer program for defining, visualizing and editing
the structural model: geometry, dimensions, support conditions, loads, released
degrees of freedom and 3d solid rendering.
128 A.Prez-Garca et al.

Fig. 3 Structural models analysed. a 3D rigid frame of steel bars and mesh of reinforced concrete
finite elements for slabs and stairs. b 3D rigid frame of steel bars and mesh of reinforced concrete
finite elements for shear walls and stairs

Table 1 Computers used to analyse the structural models

Features Computer 1 Computer 2
Operating system Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Processor Intel Core2 Duo Intel Core2 i5
CPU P8600 @ 2.40 GHz CPU M520 @ 2.40 GHz
RAM memory 4.00GB (3.87GB usable) 4.00GB (3.86GB usable)

The standalone licence of Architrave v.2011 costs 1200. The price of SAP2000
v.15 ranges from 6300 (Plus level) to 14600 (Ultimate level). SAP2000 includes
more analysis procedures than Architrave although both have implemented Lin-
ear static and Modal, Response Spectrum and Time History dynamic behaviour. A
compared assessment shows that Architrave v.2011 offers the same features than
SAP2000 v.15 Plus but it costs 80% less. It should be noted that the implemented
version of Architrave v.2011 on the Cloud Service will reduce even more the cost
because the user will not need to buy a licence but only pay per use.
Architrave: Advanced Analysis of Building Structures Integrated  129

Table 2 Processing time and statistics for structural model A (in seconds)
Architrave 2011 SAP2000 v.15
Type of process Computer 1 Computer 2 Computer 1 Computer 2
Export from AutoCAD 28 29
Import from TXT exchange file 201 124 485 333
Refresh 3D wireframe visualization 2 0.4 10 4
Refresh 3D solid visualization 1 0.2 Inadequate Inadequate
Linear static analysis 37 30 94 580
Dynamic (Newmark) analysis 3,057 2,145 14,378 12,680
Modal (6 modes) + sprectrum 98 76 485 870
File size (in Mbytes) 9.36 36.04
Model statistics: Stories (45), Joints (81,015), Degrees of freedom (486,090), Bars (17,253),
2Dfinite elements (75,366), loads (135,600), basic load cases (3), combined load cases (5)

Table 3 Processing time and statistics for structural model B (in seconds)
Architrave 2011 SAP2000 v.15
Type of process Computer 1 Computer 2 Computer 1 Computer 2
Export from AutoCAD 3 8
Import from TXT exchange file 14 7 60 40
Refresh 3D wireframe visualization 0.2 0.1 2 1
Refresh 3D solid visualization 0.1 0.1 Inadequate Inadequate
Linear static 6 6 20 19
Dynamic (Newmark) 856 567 5,125 4,930
Modal (6 modes) + sprectrum 14 13 61 58
File size (in Mbytes) 1.92 5.80
Model statistics: Stories (45), Joints (13903), Degrees of freedom (83418), Bars (4813), 2D finite
elements (11950), loads (14388), basic load cases (3), combined load cases (5)

Tables2 and 3 show the results obtained for every process on both models for
each computer while using Architrave v.2011 and SAP2000 v.15.

5Conclusions

Architrave v.2011 is performing structural analysis more than five times faster than
SAP2000 v.15, its graphic interface and visualization performance is ten times more
efficient and the cost of a standalone license is less than a fifth. Using Cloud Service
is even more convenient. In this way, the reliability and safety of the results ob-
tained will be improved and new structural problems will be tackled. Since the time
spent on the design of buildings and civil engineering structures will be reduced,
the engineering companies and the architectural studios will increase easily their
productivity and volume of business.
 130 A.Prez-Garca et al.

Finally, there will be no need of acquiring software licenses in property and

expensive hardware for solving large-scale structural problems (just pay per use),
and the users will not be worried about new software updates.

References

1. Livesley, R. K. (1975). Matrix methods of structural analysis. Pergamon Press. Oxford and
New York.
2. Clough, R. W., & Penzien, J. (2004). Dynamics of structures (2nd ed). Computers and Struc-
tures, Inc. London.
3. Architrave website: http://www.architrave.es.
4. SAP2000 website: http://www.csiberkeley.com.
5. Betts, D., Densmore, S., Narumoto, M., Pace, E., & Woloski, M. (2012). Developing applica-
tions for the cloud on the Microsoft Windows Azure Platform. Microsoft. Redmon, Washington.
6. Betts, D., Densmore, S., Narumoto, M., Pace, E., & Woloski, M. (2012). Moving applications
to the cloud on the Windows Azure Platform. Microsoft. Redmon, Washington.
7. VENUS-C project website: http://www.venus-c.eu.
8. Willis Tower. (1973). Chicago, Illinois. Commissioned to the firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
(Eng. Fazlur Khan & Arch. Bruce Graham). http://www.willistower.com.

View publication stats