FACULTY OF ENGINEERING (CIVIL ENGINEERING PROGRAM)

KA30603 Steel and Timber Design

SEMESTER 2 SESSION 2017/2018 (BK2015)

Company’s Name : AAA Pro Construction Co.

Name of Lecturer : Dr. Ahmad Nur Faidhi Rizalman

Date of Submission : 4th May 2018

Name Matrix No. Signature

Angela Jompiuh BK15160353
Angelia Chu Su Nee BK15110287
Lee Chen Choon BK15110134
Haikall Khamidy Bin Abdull Hamid BK14110115
Mohammad Qairul Nizam Bin Sabli BK15160160
Nur Farah Adlin Binti Misri BK15110206
1.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, we would also like to express our deep gratitude to Dr. Ahmad Nur Faidhi
Rizalman as our lecturer and supervisor for guiding us along the process of completing
this steel and timber project design. We also hereby would like to give special thanks to
the lecturers who help us during the project design which are Dr. Nazaruddin and Mr.
Andrew as they has gave us sufficient information in completing our project. We also like
to give thanks to the other teams which also helped us with calculations and drawing
design. Because of them we came to know about so many new things in which we are very
thankful to them. Lastly, a big thank to our teammates that has given all their efforts, time
and ideas in contemplation of making this project a success.

1
 2.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS
NO. TOPICS PAGE NO.
1.0 Acknowledgement 1
2.0 Table of Content 2
3.0 List of Symbols and Abbreviations 3
4.0 Chapter 1 Introduction 5
4.1 Project Description 5
4.2 Objectives 6
5.0 Chapter 2 Project Methodology 7
5.1 Methodology of Analysis on PROTA 7
5.2 Methodology of Eurocode 3 Calculation 10
6.0 Chapter 3 Results and Discussions 11
6.1 Overview 11
6.2 PROTA Analysis 11
6.2.1 Result 11
6.2.2 Discussion 14
6.3 Eurocode 3 Calculation 15
6.3.1 Result 15
6.3.2 Discussion 16
6.4 Comparison between PROTA and Eurocode 3 Analysis 17
6.4.1 Result 17
6.4.2 Discussion 18
7.0 Conclusion and Recommendation 19

8.0 References 19

9.0 Appendix 20
9.1 Extracted Drawings from PROTA 20
9.2 Minutes Meeting 31
9.3 Group Photos 36
9.4 PROTA Analysis 36
9.5 Eurocode 3 Manual Calculation 39

2
3.0 LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A area, surface area of the member per unit length

Aeff effective area; of the flexible base plate, of the cross-section

Anet net area

As Reinforcement Steel Area

Av shear area
b width
beff effective width
c required concrete cover for reinforcement

C0, C1 constant values

Cf,d friction coefficient

 coefficient

y yield strain

u ultimate strain

E Young’s modulus of steel

σ stress

G shear modulus

F Force

Fb,Rd design bearing resistance

Fc,fb,Rd design resistance of beam flange in compression

fa characteristic strength for local capacity in tension and compression
fck characteristic value of concrete compressive cylinder strength
fv characteristic shear strength
fvw,d design shear resistance of the fillet weld per unit length
fu ultimate strength
fy yield stress of steel
fyc yield stress of column
Gk nominal value of the effect of permanent actions
I second moment of inertia

Ib second moment of inertia of beam

Ic second moment of inertia of column

k stiffness coefficient
kc total stiffness coefficient of the compression zone
3
keff total stiffness coefficient of one bolt row in tension

Med design bending moment

Ncr elastic critical force for relevant buckling mode

Mj,Rd moment resistance of joint

Mpl,Rd plastic bending moment resistance of member

m, mx distance from the bolt centre to the plate

mpl,Rd plastic bending moment resistance of the base plate per unit length
Ned Design load

N0, N1, axial force

n distance from bolt centre to contact with the foundation
 imperfection factor

 non dimensional slenderness

L, L1 length, beam span

r lever arm

Sj stiffness of joint
t thickness
tf thickness of flange
tfb thickness of beam flange
tfc thickness of column flange
twc thickness of column web

Ved maximum shear force

VM,Ed shear force due to the resisting moments at the end sections of the beam

Vpl,Rd plastic resistance to the shear force

Vwp,Rd design resistance of column web panel in shear

x-x axis along a member

y-y axis of a cross-section

z-z axis of a cross-section

x, y, z axes
Үm general partial factor
Үmi particular partial factor
z lever arm
zeq equivalent lever arm
zt lever arm of tension zone

4
4.0 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

4.1 Project Description

The AAA Pro Construction is required to propose and construct a two storey steel framed
building for office purposes. This building is equipped with meeting room, office rooms,
pantry and etc. The dimension of this building is 9m in length and 6m in width. The
maximum height given by the client for the truss is 1.5m while the height of the first and
second floor are 4m and 3.5m respectively with the existence of 3 bays. There will be four
(4) columns at every corner of the building to support loading. The steel grade will be used
for this construction will be S275. The UB (Universal Beam) section will be used for the
beams and columns with the dimension of 305 x 305 x 240 while UKA 150 x 150 x 10 for
the roof truss members and UKA 100 x 100 x 10 for purlins, the angle section will be applied
for the calculations. Based on the analysis, the beam-column is assumed as pin-connected
while the column-foundation is assumed as fixed-supported.
Figure 4.1.1 below indicates the proposed two storey steel-framed building.

Figure 4.1.1: Two Storey Steel-Framed Building

5
 In addition, the wind loading (horizontal) for the roof is 0.75kN/m² while the roof
insulation membrane is 0.375kN/m². The selfweight for both first and second storey floor is
3.75kN/m². The imposed load for the first and second floor are 3.0kN/m² and 2.5kN/m²
respectively. The finishing loads for both floors are equivalent which is 0.75kN/m². The
loading for mechanical, electrical and lighting are also included which is 0.75kN/m².

4.2 Project Objectives

In this project, the objectives are set as follows:

a) To design the critical elements including beam, column and roof truss of the steel-
framed building using PROTA Software
b) To design the critical elements including beam, column and roof truss of the steel-
framed building using Eurocode
c) To compare the results of PROTA software and Eurocode

6
5.0 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT METHODOLOGY

5.1 Methodology of Analysis on PROTA

Start/New Project Insert Permanent Loading Create Roof

and Variable Loading as Beam on third
required storey

Select Eurocode
(Malaysia) Set Slab Select Steel
thickness as Truss
150mm

Orthogonal Axis Input steel truss

Generator along the span of
Input Slab
3m

Dir-1 Axes: Axis

Spacing = 5000*3 Select Slab Set truss as UKA
150x150x10, S275

Generate for 2
Dir-2 Axes: Axis levels
Spacing = 6000 Select Steel Purlin

Set Steel Column

as UKC
305x305x240, Set Purlin as UKA
Select Steel Beam S275 100x100x10, S275

Set Steel
Input steel beam Beam as UKB Insert Permanent
along the axis 457x191x82, Loading on Purlin
S275

Select Steel Input steel beam

Column along the
intersection point Next page

7
 Continue
from
previous
page

3D Building
Analysis

Building Analysis On Steel

member Design Check,
Show Axial Load
Comparison Warnings

Determine Utilization
ratio to find location of
critical beam, truss
and column

Extract all the design

report for critical
elements

End

8
In the Eurocode series of European standards (EN) related to construction. Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures is used to describe on how to design of steel structures, using the
limit state design philosophy. Therefore, it is selected as the main design principles and
requirement for the safety and serviceability of structure when designing the structure using
PROTA.
The main purpose for this design structure is for office used only. Therefore, the
variable load at ground floor and general use are 3.0 kN/m2 and 2.5 kN/m2 respectively. The
finishing loading on both stories is 0.75 kN/m2 but in second storey floor, there is an
additional loading of 1.125 kN/m2. The slab thickness is fixed as 150mm. The structure is
designed to be consists of two stories only. The length and width of the building are 9m and
6m respectively. In addition to that, beam-column is assumed as hinged-connected, and the
column-foundation is assumed as fixed-supported.
Certain elements are fixed when using PROTA to design the structure which includes
setting the material as C25/30 while reinforcement steel grades as grade 500 and S275. The
height for stump is 1000mm, first storey is 4000mm and second storey is 3500mm. In this
design, beams have been fixed as UKB 457x191x82, column as UKC 305x305x240, purlin as
UKA 100x100x10 and truss as UKA 150x150x10. The UK is chosen as the standard materials
in stead of Malaysia is mainly because the provided design data table is in United Kingdom
standard and hence all extracted information is UK based.
After design is completed, 3D building analysis is carried out and information such as
shear force, design report on classification, bending moment and shear force checking are
extracted to be compared with manual calculations.

9
 5.2 Methodology of Eurocode 3 Calculation

Flowchart below illustrates the process of manual calculation.

10
6.0 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

6.1 Overview
In this chapter, we will summarize the results that we obtained from PROTA analysis and
manual calculation. For convenience, complete PROTA analysis report and manual
calculation was attached in appendix section. The results that we obtained only focus on the
critical element of our structure which is truss, beam and column. For this project, slab will
not be included. Generally, comparison was conducted in terms of maximum shear, bending
moment and design axial load of the critical elements. Typically, we decide to limit the
percentage differences between the manual calculation and PROTA analysis not exceeding
15 percent. Although in some cases, the difference might exceeding 15.

6.2 PROTA Analysis

6.2.1 Result
A. Beam
Figure 6.2.1.1 shows the location of the critical beam which is located at second floor,
denoted as B/1-2. As shown in the figure, the beam support two loading from two slabs.
After analyzed, important parameters shown in Table 6.2.1.1. Since the beam simply
supported and uniformly distributed, the maximum shear located at the support and
maximum bending moment located at the mid-span of the beam.

Figure 6.2.1.1: Location of critical beam.

11
 PARAMETER VALUE
MAXIMUM SHEAR FORCE (kN) 76.99
MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT (kNm) 141.01
SHEAR CAPACITY (kN) 738
BENDING MOMENT CAPACITY (kNm) 503.7
Table 6.2.1.1: Parameters of PROTA analysis for critical beam.

B. Truss
By inspection, the critical truss located at B/1-2 and C/1-2 (Shown in Figure 6.2.1.2) since
they support purlin in two ways. PROTA analysis shows that the critical truss member
located at the end of the truss. Figure 6.2.1.3 shows the location of the critical truss
member. To do comparison with manual calculation, selected important parameters
tabulated in Table 6.2.1.2.

Figure 6.2.1.2: Location of critical truss.

Figure 6.2.1.3: Location of critical truss member.

12
 PARAMETER VALUE
DESIGN LOAD,Nd (kN) 3.1
CROSS SECTION COMPRESSION
RESISTANCCE (kN) 731.3
FLEXUAL BUCKLING RESISTANCE (kN) 731.3
Table 6.2.1.2: Parameters of PROTA analysis for critical truss member.

C. Column
After we determine the highest utilization ratio of column design, we able to identify the
most critical column that sustain the highest design axial load. Table 6.2.1.3 shows the
highest axial load that sustained by column B1, B2, C1 and C3 while the Figure 6.2.1.4
indicates the location of critical column.

Figure 6.2.1.4: Location of critical column.

PARAMETER VALUE

DESIGN LOAD,Nd (kN) 127.9

SHEAR RESISTANCE, VC,Rd 3583.0 (About major axis, y-y)
(kN) 1272.0 (About minor axis, x-x)
TORSION RESISTANCE,
Mf,Rd (N/m2) 262.8
MEMBER BUCKLING
RESISTANCE Nb,Rd (kN) 8409.2 (About major and minor axis)
Table 6.2.1.3: Parameter of PROTA analysis for critical column.

13
 6.2.2 Discussion
With the aid of PROTA software, the steel structure of the building is successfully designed
and the critical element for steel beam, steel column and steel truss is identified by
determining their utilization ratio. Utilization ratio can be defined as the ratio of reaction
force per member capacity and hence it cannot exceed 1 else the structural element will fail.
From the analysis, we can identify that the critical beam is 2B19 which is located at
the second storey. It has the highest utilization ratio of 0.28 compared to other beams. This
beam carry only the loading from the two way slab from both sides which are distributed in
trapezoidal loading as well as its beam selfweight. The beam analysis diagram from PROTA
shows that it has a maximum shear force and bending moment of 76.919 kN and 142.351
kNm respectively.
The beam is classified as Class 1 as the width to thickness ratio fit the classification
of class 1 for both flange and web which are below 8.28 and 66.2 respectively. In addition
to that, the shear capacity and bending moment capacity generated are 738 kN and 503.5
kNm respectively which is way greater than design shear force and bending moment. All the
beam is designed to be in restrained way, hence no lateral torsional buckling checking is
required. Hence, the steel beam structure of UKB 457x191x82 is suitable for the design.
Moreover, the truss 3T3 is identified as the critical truss as it carries the loading of
purlin from both directions. Even though PROTA analysis shows that the truss bottom chord
member is the critical element, we have chosen the steel truss vertical member V13 as the
highlight member to align with our manual calculation. This is because by using method of
section, manual calculation shows that the steel truss vertical member V13 is the most
critical compression member compared with others.
PROTA analysis shows the member is classified as Class 4 as width to thickness ratio
does not fit the classification for 1, 2 and 3. The member is found to be carried 3.1 kN
where most of this loading is from Purlin and the self-adjusting balancing system of truss to
maintain the system equilibrium of the structure. The axial compression for both buckling
major (y-y) and buckling minor (z-z) is found to be 12698 kN which is larger than the design
loading. Hence, steel vertical truss member UKA 150x150x10 is suitable for the design.
Besides, the critical column is also identified as 1C8 which is located at the first
storey. The column has the highest utilization ratio among the other columns which is 0.02.
The column is designed to be carried loading of 127.9kN. These includes the loading
distribution from purlin, truss and roof beam from the top storey as well as the beam and
column from the second storey. Hence, it carries a way much heavier load compared to
others.

14
 The column is classified as Class 1 as the width to thickness ratio fit the classification
of class 1 for both flange and web which are below 8.28 and 66.2 respectively. The cross
section resistance is 8409.2 kN which is way larger than design loading. On the other hand,
the member buckling resistance for both buckling major and buckling minor are 8409.2 for
both respectively which are larger than the design load. As the beam-column is assumed as
pin connected and the column-foundation is assumed as fixed supported, the lateral
torsional buckling resistance is omitted. Hence, the steel column structure of UKC
305x305x240 is suitable for the design.

6.3 Eurocode 3 Calculation

6.3.1 Result
Parameters from manual calculation for critical elements which are beam, truss and column
were tabulated in Table 6.3.1.1, Table 6.3.1.2 and Table 6.3.1.3 respectively.
A. Beam
PARAMETER VALUE
MAXIMUM SHEAR FORCE (kN) 79.891
MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT (kNm) 138.98
SHEAR CAPACITY (kN) 756.3
BENDING MOMENT CAPACITY (kNm) 503.7
Table 6.3.1.1: Parameters of manual calculation for critical beam
B. Truss

PARAMETER VALUE
DESIGN LOAD,Nd (kN) 8.586
CROSS SECTION COMPRESSION
RESISTANCCE (kN) 805.75
FLEXUAL BUCKLING RESISTANCE (kN) 583.88
Table 6.3.1.2: Parameters of manual calculation for critical truss
C. Column

PARAMETER VALUE

DESIGN LOAD,Nd (kN) 138.83

CROSS SECTION
RESISTANCE Nc,Rd (kN) 8415kN
MEMBER BUCKLING 925.7 (About major axis,x-x)
RESISTANCE Nb,Rd (kN) 311.36 (About minor axis,y-y)
Table 6.3.1.3: Parameters of manual calculation for critical column

15
 6.3.2 Discussion
After PROTA analysis is carried out, the location for critical steel beam, steel column and
steel truss can be identified and manual calculation on loading distribution and necessary
checking on shear, bending moment and deflection can be done for later comparison in 6.4.
To start off with, the critical beam 2B19 is determined first. Manual calculation shows
that it carry loading of total 34.031 kN/m from from the two way slab from both sides which
are distributed in trapezoidal loading as well as its beam selfweight of 1.107 kN/m. With that,
the shear force diagram band bending moment diagram are drawn out and it shows that the
beam has a maximum shear force and bending moment of 79.891kN and 138.95 kNm
respectively.
The beam is classified as Class 1 as the width to thickness ratio fit the classification
of class 1 for both flange and web which are below 8.28 and 66.2 respectively which is
aligned with our PROTA analysis. In addition to that, the shear capacity and bending
moment capacity generated are 756.25 kN and 503.25 kNm respectively which is way
greater than design shear force and bending moment. All the beam is designed to be in
restrained way, hence no lateral torsional buckling checking is required. Hence, the steel
beam structure of UKB 457x191x82 is suitable for the design.
Moreover, the truss 3T3 is identified as the critical truss as it carries the loading of
purlin from both directions. From manual calculation using method of section, we have
identified that V13 is the most critical compression member as it carries a loading of
8.586kN.
By manual calculation, it also shows the member is classified as Class 4 as width to
thickness ratio does not fit the classification for 1, 2 and 3 which is same as the analysis
from PROTA software. The cross compression resistance is found to be 805.75 kN whereas
the flexural buckling resistance is found to be 583.38 kN which are larger than the design
loading. Hence, steel vertical truss member UKA 150x150x10 is suitable for the design.
Besides, the critical column is also identified as 1C8 which is located at the first
storey. Therefore, loading distribution is first carried out before necessary checking can be
carried out. The loading that this column carried includes the support reaction of truss on
purlin members, selfweight of truss and roof beam from the top storey as well as the steel
beam which are connected to this column on the second storey and also the selfweight of
column on top. Hence, we have found out that the column is designed to be carried loading
of 138.831 kN.
The column is classified as Class 1 as the width to thickness ratio fit the classification
of class 1 for both flange and web which are below 8.28 and 66.2 respectively. The cross
section resistance is 8415kN which is way larger than design loading. On the other hand, the

16
member buckling resistance for both buckling major and buckling minor are 925.7kN and
311.36kN for both respectively which are larger than the design load. As the beam-column is
assumed as pin connected and the column-foundation is assumed as fixed supported, the
lateral torsional buckling resistance is omitted. Hence, the steel column structure of UKC
305x305x240 is suitable for the design.

6.4 Comparison between PROTA and Eurocode 3 Manual Analysis

6.4.1 Result

The comparison between calculation of PROTA and Eurocode 3 Manual Analysis for critical
elements such as beam, truss and column are as shown in Table 6.4.1.1, Table 6.4.1.2 and
Table 6.4.1.3 respectively.

RESULTS COMPARISON DIFFERENTS IN

PERCENTAGE (%)
MANUAL PROTA
MAXIMUM SHEAR FORCE (kN) 79.891 76.99 4
MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT (kNm) 138.98 141.01 1.40
SHEAR CAPACITY (kN) 756.3 738 2.50
BENDING MOMENT CAPACITY (kNm) 503.7 503.7 0
Table 6.4.1.1: Comparison between calculation of PROTA and Eurocode 3 Manual Analysis
for critical beam.

RESULTS COMPARISON DIFFERENTS IN

MANUAL PROTA PERCENTAGE (%)
DESIGN LOAD,Nd (kN) 8.586 3.1 64
CROSS SECTION
COMPRESSION RESISTANCCE
(kN) 805.75 731.3 10
FLEXUAL BUCKLING
RESISTANCE (kN) 583.88 731.3 25.2
Table 6.4.1.2: Comparison between calculation of PROTA and Eurocode 3 Manual Analysis
for critical truss member.

RESULTS COMPARISON DIFFERENTS IN

MANUAL PROTA PERCENTAGE (%)
DESIGN LOAD,Nd
(kN) 138.83 127.9 8.55
Table 6.4.1.3: Comparison between calculation of PROTA and Eurocode 3 Manual Analysis
for critical column.

17
 6.4.2 Discussion
Table 6.4.1.1, 6.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.3 illustrate the comparison between manual calculation and
PROTA analysis for all the critical element in the structure. The results that we compared
mainly govern by information that we can obtain from PROTA analysis. Thus, not all results
or parameters that we calculated in manual calculation will be compare.
From Table 6.4.1.1, almost all the result that we calculated through manual calculation
have percentage differences less than 15 percent. Maximum shear force have the biggest
differences in percentage with only 4 percent while bending moment capacity of the critical
beam exactly the same as PROTA analysis. From these information, we can determine that
the loading that transfer to the column from this beam was correct. Theoretically design
load for, critical column should not have bigger differences between manual and PROTA
analysis since most of the critical beam connected to the critical column. We can see the
differences of design load for critical column in Table 6.4.1.3 which shows only 8.55 percent
between manual and PROTA analysis.
Unlike beam and column, the percentage differences between PROTA and manual
calculation have bigger differences in terms of design load and flexural buckling resistance
for critical truss member. Especially for design load, the percentage differences way too
different from PROTA analysis and manual calculation. The source of this gap could be from
the distribution of loading from purlin to the truss is not exactly follow PROTA. In PROTA,
the two purlin top of the truss does not exactly on top of the truss joint. Thus, complicated
analysis could be needed to calculate the internal force of the truss members. Other than
that, the sensitivity calculation of PROTA could be another factor that affect the differences
of manual and PROTA analysis. In manual calculation, we only use two decimal places for
each result that we obtained. Repetitive round off at each stage of calculation lead the value
stray too far from the actual value.

18
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

At the end of this project, certain conclusions can be propose. Despite the sensitivity of
PROTA Structure 2018 in analyzing the structure, manual calculation also can be done to
analyse in certain cases. Although PROTA can provide platform to ease the analysis process,
precaution should be taken to ensure that the generated results compliance with the
standards that we use in normal practice. Since PROTA software highly dependent on their
programmers, some errors could appear at some time. Thus, this is where we need to do
manual calculation in certain cases to do comparison with result of PROTA. In the near
future, this can help our confidence to do decision with extra precaution since structural
design process will determine the safety of the occupants or user of a particular civil
structure.

8.0 REFERENCES

Abd. Rahman, D. A. (n.d.). Extracts of Eurocodes & Design Data. Dekstop Publisher.

Hosford, W. F. (2013). Solid mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kassimali, A. (2005). Structural analysis. Southbank, Vic.: Thomson.

McKenzie, W. M. (2013). Design of structural elements: To Eurocodes. Houndmills,

Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Steelwork Design Guide To Eurocode 3. (n.d.). University Teknologi Malaysia.

19
9.0 APPENDIX
9.1 Extracted Drawings from PROTA

DESIGN STATUS
BEFORE:

AFTER:

20
a) Specifications for
i. Slab

ii. Beam and Wall Load

21
iii. Column

iv. Purlin

22
 v. Truss

b) CRITICAL BEAM (2B19)

i. Location

23
ii. 2D View

iii. Loading Transfers

24
iv. SFD and BMD

25
v. Beam Design

26
c) Truss (3T3)

i. Location

ii. 2D View

27
iii. Truss Design

28
d) Column (1C8)
i. Location

ii. 2D View

iii. Design Load

29
iv. Column Design

30
 9.2 Minutes Meeting

FIRST MEETING OF AAA PRO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2018

Date : 5th Mac 2018

Day : Monday
Time : 11.30 a.m.
Venue : Foyer, Faculty of Engineering, UMS
Attendance :
1. Angela Jompiuh Leader
2. Angelia Chu Su Nee Member
3. Nur Farah Adlin Binti Misri Member
4. Lee Chen Choon Member
5. Haikall Khamidy Member
6. Mohammad Qairul Nizam Bin Sabli Member

AGENDA 1: DISCUSSION
1.1 Leader explaines about the group project requirements and distribute work load.

(ATTENTION & ACTION: All Members)

1.2 Design the structural drawing.

(Action: Haikall & Lee Chen Choon)

1.3 Analysis slab and loading of structure.

(Action: Angela & Angelia)

1.4 Determine quantity of beams and columns.

(Action: Farah & Nizam)

AGENDA 2: CLOSING
2.1 Meeting is adjourned at 12.30 p.m.
2.2 Next meeting will be held at a new date and venue.

PREPARED BY, CHECKED BY,

Angelia A
…………………………………………. …………………………………………
( Angelia Chu Su Nee ) ( Angela Jompiuh )
Member of AAA Pro Cons Co. Leader of AAA Pro Cons Co.

31
 SECOND MEETING OF AAA PRO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2018

Date : 14th Mac 2018

Day : Wednesday
Time : 11.30 a.m.
Venue : Foyer, Faculty of Engineering, UMS
Attendance :
1. Angela Jompiuh Leader
2. Angelia Chu Su Nee Member
3. Nur Farah Adlin Binti Misri Member
4. Lee Chen Choon Member
5. Haikall Khamidy Member
6. Mohammad Qairul Nizam Bin Sabli Member

AGENDA 1: PROGRESS REPORT

1.1. All members update their progress of work distribution from first meeting.

(Action: All Members)

1.2. Structural drawing is presented and finalized.

(Action: Haikall & Lee Chen Choon)

1.3. Slab analysis and loading of structure is determined according to requirements.

(Action: Angela & Angelia)

1.4. Quantity of beams and columns are decided based on the requirements needed.

(Action: Farah & Nizam)

AGENDA 2: DISCUSSION
2.1 Leader assigned new tasks to members.
(ATTENTION & ACTION: All Members)
2.2 Discuss and design building layout using PROTA software.

(ATTENTION & ACTION: All Members)

2.3 Progress of project work.
(ACTION: Lee Chen Choon & Angelia)
2.4 Design Gantt chart.

(ACTION: Farah & Angela)

2.5 Compile progress slide to be presented on 29th March 2018 (Thursday).

(ACTION: Haikall & Nizam)

AGENDA 3: CLOSING
3.1. Meeting is adjourned at 12.30 p.m.
3.2. Next meeting will be held at a new date and venue.

PREPARED BY, CHECKED BY,

Angelia A
…………………………………………. ……………………………………………..
( Angelia Chu Su Nee ) ( Angela Jompiuh )
Member of AAA Pro Cons Co. Leader of AAA Pro Cons Co.

32
 THIRD MEETING OF AAA PRO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2018

Date : 16th April 2018

Day : Wednesday
Time : 11.30 a.m.
Venue : Foyer, Faculty of Engineering, UMS
Attendance :
1. Angela Jompiuh Leader
2. Angelia Chu Su Nee Member
3. Nur Farah Adlin Binti Misri Member
4. Lee Chen Choon Member
5. Haikall Khamidy Member
6. Mohammad Qairul Nizam Bin Sabli Member

AGENDA 1: MANUAL CALCULATION

1.1 All members update their progress of work distribution from second Meeting.

(Action: All Members)

1.2 Distribution parts for manual calculation to each members of group.

(Action: All Members)

1.3 Each member is required to compare the results from PROTA software with their
manual calculation.
(Action: All Members)
1.4 Ensure the maximum shear, bending and flexural capacity of the section chosen
fulfill the requirements needed.

AGENDA 2: CLOSING
2.1 Meeting is adjourned at 12.30 p.m.
2.2 Next meeting will be held at a new date and venue.

PREPARED BY, CHECKED BY,

Angelia A
…………………………………………. …………………………………………
( Angelia Chu Su Nee ) ( Angela Jompiuh )
Member of AAA Pro Cons Co. Leader of AAA Pro Cons Co.

33
 FOURTH MEETING OF AAA PRO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2018

Date : 26th April 2018

Day : Thursday
Time : 10.30 a.m.
Venue : CEC Room, Faculty of Engineering, UMS
Attendance :
1. Angela Jompiuh Leader
2. Angelia Chu Su Nee Member
3. Nur Farah Adlin Binti Misri Member
4. Lee Chen Choon Member
5. Haikall Khamidy Member
6. Mohammad Qairul Nizam Bin Sabli Member

AGENDA 1: DISCUSSION
1.1 All group members hand over their manual calculation and give to other person in
the group for checking the calculations to ensure the results are accurate and
compatible with the PROTA software.

(ATTENTION & ACTION: All Members)

1.2 The leader inform about the submission dateline and the content needed for the full
report.

(ATTENTION & ACTION: All Members)

1.3 The leader distribute the parts for the report evenly to each member.

(ATTENTION & ACTION: All Members)

AGENDA 2: CLOSING
3.1 Meeting is adjourned at 4.00 p.m.
3.2 Next meeting is decided to be on 2nd May 2018.

PREPARED BY, CHECKED BY,

Angelia A
…………………………………………. …………………………………………
( Angelia Chu Su Nee ) ( Angela Jompiuh )
Member of AAA Pro Cons Co. Leader of AAA Pro Cons Co.

34
 FIFTH MEETING OF AAA PRO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2018

Date : 2nd April 2018

Day : Thursday
Time : 10.30 a.m.
Venue : CEC Room, Faculty of Engineering, UMS
Attendance :

1. Angela Jompiuh Leader

2. Angelia Chu Su Nee Member
3. Nur Farah Adlin Binti Misri Member
4. Lee Chen Choon Member
5. Haikall Khamidy Member
6. Mohammad Qairul Nizam Bin Sabli Member

AGENDA 1: DISCUSSION
1.1. Compile the full report.

(ATTENTION & ACTION: All Members)

1.2. Discussion for final slide presentation.

(ATTENTION & ACTION: All Members)

AGENDA 2: CLOSING
3.1 Meeting is adjourned at 4.00 p.m.

PREPARED BY, CHECKED BY,

Angelia A
…………………………………………. …………………………………………
( Angelia Chu Su Nee ) ( Angela Jompiuh )
Member of AAA Pro Cons Co. Leader of AAA Pro Cons Co.

35
 9.3 Group Photo

9.4 PROTA Analysis

A) Beam

Figure 3.1: Shear Force Diagram for critical beam.

Figure 3.2: Bending Moment Diagram for critical beam.

36
Figure 3.3: Critical beam design check.

B) Truss

Figure 3.4: Critical truss vertical member design.

37
 C) Column

Figure 3.5: Axial load design for critical column.

Figure 3.6: Critical column design.

38
 9.5 Eurocode 3 Manual Calculation
A) Beam

Figure 3.7: Manual calculation of maximum shear and bending moment for critical beam.

Figure 3.8: Manual calculation for shear capacity of the critical beam.

Figure 3.9: Manual calculation for bending moment capacity of the critical beam.

39
 B) Truss

Figure 3.10: Manual calculation of maximum compression force in critical truss member.

Figure 3.11: Manual calculation cross-section compression resistance for critical truss
member.

40
Figure 3.12: Manual calculation member flexural buckling resistance for critical truss
member.

C) Column

Figure 3.13: Manual calculation for design load of critical column.

41