{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/44843"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/44843","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Evaluation of software for analysis and design of reinforced concrete structures","abstract":"A study was performed to compare the linear static analysis and concrete design capabilities of two structural analysis and design programs - MicasPlus and STAAD III. Four structures were considered including a four span continuous beam, a two story 3-D frame, a seven story 3-D frame, and a fourteen story 3-D frame. The study compared the accuracy of the programs as well as their functionality. In the evaluation of the accuracy of analysis results, factors such as support reactions, nodal displacements, and element end forces were compared. The evaluation of the concrete design capabilities was based on comparing the reinforcement recommended by the two programs for beams and columns. For beam design, steel reinforcing bar selections for positive moment, negative moment, and shear reinforcing were compared. For column design, the cross sectional area of steel chosen by each program was compared. Factors considered in the evaluation of functionality included: user interface, ease of use, ease of learning, quality of output, documentation, flexibility, and analysis and design capabilities.","abstract_html":"A study was performed to compare the linear static analysis and concrete design capabilities of two structural analysis and design programs - MicasPlus and STAAD III. Four structures were considered including a four span continuous beam, a two story 3-D frame, a seven story 3-D frame, and a fourteen story 3-D frame. The study compared the accuracy of the programs as well as their functionality. In the evaluation of the accuracy of analysis results, factors such as support reactions, nodal displacements, and element end forces were compared. The evaluation of the concrete design capabilities was based on comparing the reinforcement recommended by the two programs for beams and columns. For beam design, steel reinforcing bar selections for positive moment, negative moment, and shear reinforcing were compared. For column design, the cross sectional area of steel chosen by each program was compared. Factors considered in the evaluation of functionality included: user interface, ease of use, ease of learning, quality of output, documentation, flexibility, and analysis and design capabilities.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Betaque, Andrew D."],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Civil Engineering","degree_department":"Civil Engineering","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Rojiani, Kamal B."],"committee_members":["Barker, Richard M.","Garst, Donald A."],"year":1992,"date_issued":"1992-12-02","date_published":"1992-12-02","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:13Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-09192009-040235"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-09192009-040235","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/44843","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Rojiani, Kamal B."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Barker, Richard M.","Garst, Donald A."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Civil Engineering"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Betaque, Andrew D."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T21:46:07Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T21:46:07Z","2009-09-19"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1992-12-02"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.dcmitype","label":"Dc Type Dcmitype","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Civil Engineering"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-09192009-040235"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/44843"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["A study was performed to compare the linear static analysis and concrete design capabilities of two structural analysis and design programs - MicasPlus and STAAD III. Four structures were considered including a four span continuous beam, a two story 3-D frame, a seven story 3-D frame, and a fourteen story 3-D frame. The study compared the accuracy of the programs as well as their functionality. In the evaluation of the accuracy of analysis results, factors such as support reactions, nodal displacements, and element end forces were compared. The evaluation of the concrete design capabilities was based on comparing the reinforcement recommended by the two programs for beams and columns. For beam design, steel reinforcing bar selections for positive moment, negative moment, and shear reinforcing were compared. For column design, the cross sectional area of steel chosen by each program was compared. Factors considered in the evaluation of functionality included: user interface, ease of use, ease of learning, quality of output, documentation, flexibility, and analysis and design capabilities."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["BTD"]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Evaluation of software for analysis and design of reinforced concrete structures"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Rojiani, Kamal B."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Barker, Richard M.","Garst, Donald A."],"dc:contributor.department":["Civil Engineering"],"dc:creator":["Betaque, Andrew D."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T21:46:07Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T21:46:07Z","2009-09-19"],"dc:date.issued":["1992-12-02"],"dc:description.abstract":["A study was performed to compare the linear static analysis and concrete design capabilities of two structural analysis and design programs - MicasPlus and STAAD III. Four structures were considered including a four span continuous beam, a two story 3-D frame, a seven story 3-D frame, and a fourteen story 3-D frame. The study compared the accuracy of the programs as well as their functionality. In the evaluation of the accuracy of analysis results, factors such as support reactions, nodal displacements, and element end forces were compared. The evaluation of the concrete design capabilities was based on comparing the reinforcement recommended by the two programs for beams and columns. For beam design, steel reinforcing bar selections for positive moment, negative moment, and shear reinforcing were compared. For column design, the cross sectional area of steel chosen by each program was compared. Factors considered in the evaluation of functionality included: user interface, ease of use, ease of learning, quality of output, documentation, flexibility, and analysis and design capabilities."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:format.medium":["BTD"],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-09192009-040235"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/44843"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:title":["Evaluation of software for analysis and design of reinforced concrete structures"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.dcmitype":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Civil Engineering"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:13Z"}