ROMADHONI, FITRA (2025) PERBANDINGAN PERANCANGAN STRUKTUR GEDUNG SISTEM GANDA MENGGUNAKAN ETABS DAN TEKLA STRUCTURAL DESIGNER. S1 thesis, Fakultas Teknik Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa.

	Text (Fulltext) Fitra Romadhoni_3336210054_Fulltext.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (39MB) | Request a copy
	Text (Bab 1) Fitra Romadhoni_3336210054_01.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) | Request a copy
	Text (Bab 2) Fitra Romadhoni_3336210054_02.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (367kB) | Request a copy
	Text (Bab 3) Fitra Romadhoni_3336210054_03.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) | Request a copy
	Text (Bab 4) Fitra Romadhoni_3336210054_04.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (534kB) | Request a copy
	Text (Bab 5) Fitra Romadhoni_3336210054_05.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (11MB) | Request a copy
	Text (Bab 6) Fitra Romadhoni_3336210054_06.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (289kB) | Request a copy
	Text (Daftar Pustaka) Fitra Romadhoni_3336210054_Ref.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (280kB) | Request a copy
	Text (Lampiran Skripsi) Fitra Romadhoni_3336210054_Lamp.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (25MB) | Request a copy
	Text (Cek Plagiasi) Fitra Romadhoni_3336210054_CP.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (38MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Indonesia is a country with high tectonic activity, making it prone to earthquake disasters. Structures with dual systems are an effective choice because they provide good strength against seismic loads. The use of structural design software is important to facilitate and minimize the risk of calculation errors. ETABS and Tekla Structural Designer (TSD) are software programs that can be used to assist in these structural calculations. This study discusses the comparison of dual system design using ETABS and TSD, aiming to identify differences in base shear results, story displacement, and the design of structural elements in terms of the design capacity ratios of slab, beam, column, joint, and shear wall elements. The structure is modeled as a 10-story office building located in Yogyakarta with soft soil conditions. The design is based on SNI 1726:2019, SNI 2847:2019, and SNI 1727:2020. The results show that ETABS has a greater base shear in the X direction (difference of 44.830 kN (1.27%)), while TSD is greater in the Y direction (difference of 4.689 kN (0.81%)). Total story displacement from TSD is greater in the X direction (difference of 1.157 mm (1.65%)), while ETABS is greater in the Y direction (difference of 0.314 mm (0.53%)). In the same review, namely the 1st floor and the largest internal force, ETABS and TSD produced reinforcement ratios respectively as follows: slab flexural 0.5978 and 0.2995, beam flexural 0.8007 and 0.7740, beam shear 0.7680 and 0.7918, beam torsion 0.2232 and 0.3743, column flexural 0.3803 and 0.3352, column shear 0.3334 and 0.3334, joint shear 0.0941 and 0.0964, wall flexural 0.3138 and 0.3400, and wall shear 0.5758 and 0.5616. ETABS tends to have higher ratios in longitudinal reinforcement of slab, beam, and column, as well as transversal wall ratios, while TSD has higher ratios in beam shear, beam torsion, joint shear, and wall longitudinal reinforcement.

Actions (login required)

View Item