CIE 524:

Steel Structures
Professor Michel Bruneau

Team 5: Steel Heads

Special Moment Resisting Frame

Design Report

Date: 3/7/2019

Team Members
Ariana Fay
Michael Murphy
Vidhi Solanki
Snehasagar Gopagani

1|Page
 Table of Contents

Special Moment Resisting Frame .............................................................................................................. 4

Seismic Site Data ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Loading Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 6
SAP2000 Model ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Preliminary Sizing..................................................................................................................................... 6
Modeling in SAP2000............................................................................................................................... 7
Drift Ratios................................................................................................................................................ 7
Forces on the Members ............................................................................................................................. 9
Assumptions and Rationale ..................................................................................................................... 11
Design of System ....................................................................................................................................... 11
General Approach ................................................................................................................................... 11
Connections............................................................................................................................................. 12
Final Design ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Appendix .................................................................................................................................................... 19
Management Approach ........................................................................................................................... 19
Minutes of Coordination in Meetings ..................................................................................................... 19
Team Member Roles ............................................................................................................................... 20
Time Sheet .............................................................................................................................................. 21
Task Sheet ............................................................................................................................................... 22

2|Page
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Parameters for calculation of seismic load
Table 2: Lateral force distribution
Table 3: Final section details of the SMRF
Table 4: Story drifts for the right sway
Table 5: Story drifts for the left sway
Table 6: Axial forces in the beams
Table 7: Shear and moment in MRF beams
Table 8: Column member forces for story 1 & 2
Table 9: Column member forces for stories 3, 4 & 5
Table 10: Time sheet
Table 11: Task sheet

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: USGS Site Map
Figure 2: Acceleration response spectra
Figure 3: SAP2000 model depicting the moment resisting frames in the structure
Figure 4: Bending moment diagram of the frame for the right sway case
Figure 5: FBD moment at typ. connection
Figure 6: FBD shear at typ. connection
Figure 7: Connection design parameters
Figure 8: Design spreadsheet
Figure 9: Design spreadsheet
Figure 10: Connections – typ.
Figure 11: Connections – plan view
Figure 12: Elevation view of structure
Figure 13: Plan view of structure

3|Page
1. Special Moment Resisting Frame
The main objective of a moment resisting frame is to provide strength to a structural system as
it experiences a lateral load, such as an earthquake load. The design process behind a moment
resisting frame involves plastic analysis, due to how this frame behaves as it is taking a lateral
load. A properly designed moment resisting frame follows the strong column weak beam
theory, where columns remain elastic and plastic hinges form in the beams to allow for energy
dissipation and story drift. There are numerous methods to design this system to behave in the
manner named above. The team chose to implement reduced beam size as a method to allow
plastic hinges to form in the beams. This project entails a 5 story, 2 bay structure, with the
moment frame in alternating bays for each story

2. Seismic Site Data

The proposed site for the project is at an elevation at 12 ft. above sea level, with the coordinates of
45.372891, -122.601514. The site class is B and risk category II. Being that the project is in the Pacific
Northwest, the seismicity of the site is increased as opposed if the project site was located in the eastern
United States. The following below are the site parameters that will be used to determine the design
earthquake loads on the structure.

Figure 1: USGS Site Map

4|Page
 Figure 2: Acceleration response spectra

Table 1: Parameters for calculation of seismic load

Parameter Value Commentary
Fa 1 Provided by instructor
Fv 1
Ss (g) 0.843 USGS website for given site location
S1 (g) 0.376
SMS (g) 0.843 ASCE 7-16 chapter 11, eq 11.4-1
SM1 (g) 0.376 ASCE 7-16 chapter 11, eq 11.4-2
SDS (g) 0.562 ASCE 7-16 chapter 11, eq 11.4-3
SD1 (g) 0.251 ASCE 7-16 chapter 11, eq 11.4-4
H (ft) 60
T (s) 0.741 ASCE 7-16 chapter 12, eq 12.8-7
To (s) 0.089 ASCE 7-16 chapter 11, section 11.3
Ts (s) 0.446 ASCE 7-16 chapter 11, section 11.3
Sa (g) 0.339 ASCE 7-16 chapter 11, eq 11.4-6
W (kips) 3600
k 1.12 ASCE 7-16, section 12.8.3
R 8 ASCE 7-16, table 12.2-1
Risk II ASCE 7-16, Table 1.5-1
category
I 1 ASCE 7-16, Table 1.5-2
Cs 0.07 ASCE 7-16, section 12.8.1.1
V (kips) 152.28 ASCE 7-16 chapter 11, eq 12.8-1
TL 16 ASCE 7-16 section 11.4.6, Figure 22-15
max Cs 0.0423 ASCE 7-16 chapter 11, eq 12.8-3
min Cs 0.0225 ASCE 7-16 chapter 11, eq 12.8-5

5|Page
3. Loading Analysis
Loading was determined by ASCE 7-10 chapter 12, it was assumed there are 8 frames taking
the total earthquake load, therefore making the tributary with of one frame 30 ft. Taking this
into account, table 2 shows the loads applied on the structure via the equivalent lateral force
method. The forces increase linearly with the height of the frame.

Table 2: Lateral force distribution

Story Force (kips)

5 53.13

4 41.38

3 29.98

2 19.0

1 8.75

4. SAP2000 Model
4.1 Preliminary sizing
The preliminary beam and column sizes are based on equation (1) from the book `Ductile
Design of Steel Structures’. Based on the beam moment of inertia, the sizes were chosen.
These sizes were used in SAP2000 model for obtaining the elastic drift. The member sizes
were iterated several times by choosing members with higher moments of inertia to obtain
inter-story drift lesser than 2%.

Ibi = (Vihi/12EN)×(Cd/ θmax)×[(hi/2)+L]…....................................................................(1)

Where Vi is the frame shear at level i, hi is the height of level i, E is modulus of elasticity,
Ibi is the moment of inertia of each beam in the frame at level i and L is the span of each
beam in frame. The preliminary sizing gave large sections because of the drift criteria.
Therefore, our preliminary design is same as final design shown in Table 3.

6|Page
4.2 Modeling in SAP2000
The special moment resisting frame was modeled in SAP2000 to analyze for the member
forces and drift limit ratios. Since the given configuration is an alternating moment
resisting frame, in each story one beam is connected rigidly to the column essentially
making it a moment resisting frame and another beam is connected to the columns with pin
connections. The model of the frame in SAP2000 along with the partial releases is shown
in the Figure 3. It is evident from the SAP2000 model that the moment resisting frames are
modeled alternatingly. The forces are applied for both cases of left sway and right sway to
counter the asymmetry of the structure.

Figure 3: SAP2000 model depicting the moment resisting frames in the structure.

4.3 Drift Ratios

Though it is intuitive to satisfy the member capacities first in the model and later check for
the drift limits, moment resisting frames do not adhere to the traditional rules of design.
The most critical factor in the design of moment resisting frame is its drift. The system is
so flexible so that the drift governs the design totally. Hence the entire analysis of the
moment resisting frame revolved in satisfying the drift limits. At first, the sections selected
through the preliminary analysis are chosen and assigned to the SAP2000 model. It failed
to satisfy the drift limits. So, members with higher values of moment of inertia have to be
selected to satisfy the drift limits. Usage of reduced beam sections as connections have
enforced stringent rules over the sizes of the beam sections. The sections weighing more

7|Page
than 300lb/ft cannot be picked, also while satisfying the maximum width of the beam
flange to be lesser than 1.75 inches. After several iterations, the final beam sizes along with
the column sizes that could satisfy the drift limits are selected. Since there is no moment
and shear taken by the beams that are not the part of moment resisting frames, lighter
sections were chosen. The section details along with the drift limits are shown in the below
tables. Limiting the cut of RBS to 40% of the flange width, the drift ratios are multiplied
by 1.08 times to account for the loss of the section in the beam. As evident from Tables 4
& 5, the story drifts are satisfying the specified limit of 2%. The drift limit of the structure
is also less than 2% for both the right and left sways.
Table 3: Final section details of the SMRF

MRF Non MRF Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

Story
beam beam (left) (center) (right)
1 W21X201 W18X86 W36X848 W36X848 W36X848
2 W21X201 W18X86 W36X848 W36X848 W36X848
3 W21X201 W18X86 W36X487 W36X487 W36X487
4 W21X201 W18X86 W36X487 W36X487 W36X487
5 W21X201 W18X86 W36X487 W36X487 W36X487

Table 4: Story drifts for the right sway

Story Drift Story drift (%) Cd RBS Inelastic drift (%)

1 0.48 0.33 5.5 1.08 1.97
2 0.91 0.30 5.5 1.08 1.79
3 1.31 0.27 5.5 1.08 1.61
4 1.62 0.22 5.5 1.08 1.33
5 1.89 0.18 5.5 1.08 1.09

Table 5: Story drifts for the left sway

Story Drift Story drift (%) Cd RBS Inelastic drift (%)

1 0.48 0.33 5.5 1.08 1.98
2 0.91 0.30 5.5 1.08 1.79
3 1.31 0.27 5.5 1.08 1.63
4 1.63 0.23 5.5 1.08 1.34
5 1.91 0.19 5.5 1.08 1.11

8|Page
4.4 Forces on the members
After satisfying the drift limits of the Frame, the SAP2000 model is analyzed and the
member forces are checked with the capacity of the members provided by the steel manual.
The bending moment diagram of the frame obtained from the SAP for the right sway case
is depicted in the Figure. One key take-away is that there is no moment coming into the
members that are pin connected to the columns. Essentially only rigidly connected
members are acting as moment resisting frames. The forces occurring in each member are
given in the tables 6, 7, 8 and 9. The capacity of members in axial and bending are
determined using the Steel Construction Manual. The capacity of members in shear is
calculated using equation (2) in chapter G of AISC 360.

Vn = 0.6FyAw ….................................................................................................................(2)

Figure 4: Bending moment diagram of the frame for the right sway case

9|Page
 Table 6: Axial forces in the beams

Axial forces (kips) for left and right sway

MRF beam MRF beam Pinned Pinned
Story Capacity
(L) (R) Capacity beam (L) beam (R)
1 16.7 -27.66 2060 6.01 -13.17 808
2 -3.5 -18.89 2060 -3.5 -0.74 808
3 -27.34 -7.46 2060 -10.71 -14.46 808
4 -18.17 -27.84 2060 -25.15 -11.76 808
5 -40.84 -13.83 2060 -1.8 -49.36 808

Table 7: Shear and moment in MRF beams

Shear (kip) and Moment (kip-ft) of MRF beams

Story Shear(L) Shear(R) Capacity Moment(L) Moment(R) Capacity
1 101.65 101.53 470.93 915 914 1890
2 92.17 92.43 470.93 833 834 1890
3 75.23 75.11 470.93 680 679 1890
4 61.57 61.9 470.93 557 558 1890
5 47.98 47.62 470.93 436 430 1890

Table 8: Column member forces for story 1&2

Story Left Right

1&2 Column1 Column2 Column3 Column1 Column2 Column3
Axial 224.86 -71.2 -153.74 -224.27 69.93 154.34
Capacity 5840 5840 5840 5840 5840 5840
Shear 60.82 73.98 -34.17 -61.45 -76.77 32.96
Capacity 2466 2466 2466 2466 2466 2466
Moment 729.86 759.34 748.05 737.39 753.45 738.12
Capacity 7990 7990 7990 7990 7990 7990

Table 9: Column member forces for stories 3, 4 &5.

Story 3, Left Right

4&5 Column1 Column2 Column3 Column1 Column2 Column3
Axial 123.21 -61.64 -61.57 -122.74 60.84 61.9
Capacity 10400 10400 10400 10400 10400 10400
Shear 31.15 62.65 -30.68 -33.04 -58.62 32.82
Capacity 1423 1423 1423 1423 1423 1423
Moment 613.5 650.7 529.71 626.77 622.3 510.4
Capacity 14700 14700 14700 14700 14700 14700

10 | P a g e
 4.5 Assumptions and Rationale
For the configuration of this system, there are moment frames in alternating bays for each story height.
This is achieved by fixing one beam while the beam in the bay adjacent is pinned. Moment is only
transferred in one bay on each story height. This results in different W shapes are used for the fixed
beam versus the pinned beam.

5. Design of the System

5.1 General Approach
The design basis is to limit the overall and inter-story drift to 2% of the height of the structure.
Once that is achieved using elastic analysis, RBS sections are designed taking into account the
capacities of the chosen beams and columns. AISC 358 lists all the steps for design of RBS.
After designing the connections, other checks such as beam-column relationship, column
buckling, beam bracing were also carried out and are described in the following sections.

Figure 5: FBD moment at typ. connection

11 | P a g e
 Figure 6: FBD shear at typ. connection

5.2 Connections
How the connections are designed in this system is essential to how the system will perform.
The desired performance of the system is to have plastic hinges forming in the beams to achieve
strong column weak beam behavior. One way to achieve this proper performance is to use the
reduced beam size (RBS) connection, one of the many options of prequalified connections
specified in AISC 358. The reduced beam size connection is achieved by cutting down the
flange width in areas on the beams in the moment frame at locations where the formation of a
plastic hinge is desired. Three important parameters for RBS are a, b and c which correspond
to the dimensions of cut into the flange. Parameter a is the distance from the edge of cut to the
edge of the column on the beam. Parameter b is the length of the curved cut in to the flange
of the beam. Parameter c corresponds to the greatest distance cut into the flange on the circular
cut. These parameters can be seen in Figure 11 below. The design spreadsheet can be seen in
Figures 7-9.

12 | P a g e
Variable Value Units Comments Check
Material Properties
Fy 50 ksi Yield strength of steel
Fu 65 ksi Ultimate strength of steel (AISC Steel Manual Table 2-4)
E 29000 ksi Elastic modulus of steel
Ry 1.1
Cpr 1.15 (Fy+Fu)/2*Fy, ANSI/AISC 358, Eq 2.4-2

Frame Dimensions
L/H 1.5
L 18 ft Length of beams
H 12 ft Height of columns

Beams
Section Properties
W21X201 Story 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
A 59.3 in^2
Zx 530 in^3
tw 0.91 in
d 23 in ANSI/AISC 358, Section 5.3.1 Limit: W36
tf 1.63 in ANSI/AISC 358, Section 5.3.1 Limit: 1.75 in
bf 12.6 in
ry 3.02 in
W 201 lb/ft ANSI/AISC 358, Section 5.3.1 Limit: 300 lb/ft
Columns
Section Properties
W36X853 Story 3, 4, 5
A 251 in^2
Zx 3920 in^3
tw 2.52 in
d 43.1 in Limit: W36
tf 4.53 in
bf 18.2 in
kdes 5.28 in
kdet 5.375 in
k1 2.0625 in
W36X487 Story 1, 2
A 143 in^2
Zx 2130 in^3
tw 1.5 in
d 39.3 in Limit: W36
tf 2.68 in
bf 17.1 in
kdes 3.63 in
k1 1.875 in

Figure 7: Connection design parameters

13 | P a g e
 Calculations
clear span/depth 7.5 ANSI/AISC 358, Section 5.3.1 Greater than: 7
RBS Dimensions
a 7.5 in 0.5*bf < a < 0.75*bf, ANSI/AISC 358, Eq 5.8-1 6.3
b 16.5 in 0.65*d < b < 0.85*d, ANSI/AISC 358, Eq 5.8-2 15.0
c 2.25 in 0.1*bf < c < 0.25*bf, ANSI/AISC 358, Eq 5.8-3 1.3
Z_RBS 373.3 in^3
Calculate Probable Maximum Moment at the Center of the RBS
Mpr 23608.1 kip-in Cpr*Ry*Fy*Z_RBS, ANSI/AISC 358, Eq 5.8-5
Calculate the Shear Force at the End of the Beam
Sh 15.8 in a+0.5*b
Lh 141.4 in L-2*(0.5*dc)-2*Sh
V_RBS 333.9 kips (2*Mpr)/Lh
φVn 627.9 kips φ*0.6*Ry*Fy*Aw
Calculate the Probable Maximum Moment at the Face of the Column
Mf 28867.4 kip-in Mpr+V_RBS*Sh, ANSI/AISC 358, Eq 5.8-6
Mpe 29150.0 kip-in Mpr+V_RBS*0.5*dc, ANSI/AISC 358, Eq 5.8-7
Design the Beam Web-to-Column Connection
dmin 12.2 in Vu/(φ*0.6*Fy*tw*Cv)
Check Continuity Plate Requirements
d* 21.4 in d-tf
Pf 1350.8 kips Mf/d*
tlim 2.1 in bf/6, Prov. Eq. E3-8
W36X853
Pfb 5771.5 kips φ*6.25*Fy*tf^2
φRn 5771.5 kips Pfb, Manual Eq. 4-4a
Pwo 3326.4 kips φ*5*Fy*tw*kdes
Pwi 126.0 kip/in φ*Fy*tw
Ib 1.6 in
φRn 3531.8 kips Pwo+Pwi*lb, Manual Eq. 4-2a
φRn 6441.1 kips Spec. Eq. J10-4
W36X487
Pfb 2020.1 kips φ*6.25*Fy*tf^2
φRn 2020.1 kips Pfb, Manual Eq. 4-4a
Pwo 1361.3 kips φ*5*Fy*tw*kdes
Pwi 75.0 kip/in φ*Fy*tw
Ib 1.6 in
φRn 1483.5 kips Pwo+Pwi*lb, Manual Eq. 4-2a
φRn 2286.1 kips Spec. Eq. J10-4
Continuity plates not required.

Figure 8: Design spreadsheet

14 | P a g e
 Check Column-Beam Relationship, ANSI/AISC 358, Section 5.4
1 Beam, 1 Column W36X487
ΣMpc* 122755.3603 kip*in ΣZc*(Fy-(Puc/Ag))*(h/(h-0.5*db)), Prov. Eq. E3-2
ht 72 in 0.5*H
hb 72 in 0.5*H
ΣMuv 11820.76045 kip*in ΣV_RBS*(a+0.5*b+0.5*dc)
ΣMpb* 35428.9 kip*in Σ(Mpr+Muv)
Ratio 3.5 ΣMpc*/ΣMpb* Greater than: 1
1 Beam, 2 Columns W36X487
ΣMpc* 245510.7207 kip*in ΣZc*(Fy-(Puc/Ag))*(h/(h-0.5*db)), Prov. Eq. E3-2
ht 72 in 0.5*H
hb 72 in 0.5*H
ΣMuv 11820.76045 kip*in ΣV_RBS*(a+0.5*b+0.5*dc)
ΣMpb* 35428.9 kip*in Σ(Mpr+Muv)
Ratio 6.9 ΣMpc*/ΣMpb* Greater than: 1
1 Beam, 2 Columns W36X853
ΣMpc* 458148.6286 kip*in ΣZc*(Fy-(Puc/Ag))*(h/(h-0.5*db)), Prov. Eq. E3-2
ht 72 in 0.5*H
hb 72 in 0.5*H
ΣMuv 12455.20804 kip*in ΣV_RBS*(a+0.5*b+0.5*dc)
ΣMpb* 36063.3 kip*in Σ(Mpr+Muv)
Ratio 12.7 ΣMpc*/ΣMpb* Greater than: 1
1 Beam, 2 Columns Both
ΣMpc* 351829.6747 kip*in ΣZc*(Fy-(Puc/Ag))*(h/(h-0.5*db)), Prov. Eq. E3-2
ht 72 in 0.5*H
hb 72 in 0.5*H
ΣMuv 12455.20804 kip*in ΣV_RBS*(a+0.5*b+0.5*dc)
ΣMpb* 36063.3 kip*in Σ(Mpr+Muv)
Ratio 9.8 ΣMpc*/ΣMpb* Greater than: 1
Check Panel Zone
1 Beam, 1 Column W36X487
Vc 246.0339539 kips ΣMpb*/(hb+ht)
Ru 1104.802057 kips (ΣMf/(db-tbf))-Vc
φRn 2249.096243 kips 0.6*Fy*dc*tw*(1+((3*bcf*(tcf^2))/(db*dc*tw))), Spec. Eq. J10-11
1 Beam, 2 Columns W36X487
Vc 246.0339539 kips ΣMpb*/(hb+ht)
Ru 1104.802057 kips (ΣMf/(db-tbf))-Vc
φRn 2249.096243 kips 0.6*Fy*dc*tw*(1+((3*bcf*(tcf^2))/(db*dc*tw))), Spec. Eq. J10-11
1 Beam, 2 Columns W36X853
Vc 250.4398399 kips ΣMpb*/(hb+ht)
Ru 1100.396171 kips (ΣMf/(db-tbf))-Vc
φRn 3622.115258 kips 0.6*Fy*dc*tw*(1+((3*bcf*(tcf^2))/(db*dc*tw))), Spec. Eq. J10-11
1 Beam, 2 Columns Both
Vc 250.4398399 kips ΣMpb*/(hb+ht)
Ru 1100.396171 kips (ΣMf/(db-tbf))-Vc
φRn 1843.821517 kips 0.6*Fy*dc*tw*(1+((3*bcf*(tcf^2))/(db*dc*tw))), Spec. Eq. J10-11
Bracing at the Beam-to-Column Connection
Pbr 29.666 kips
Bracing Near the Plastic Hinge
Mr 20528.80775 kip-in Ry*Fy*Z_RBS
Pbr 57.63820613 kips (0.06*Mr)/ho
Bracing Along the Beam
Pbr 19.21273538 kip/in (0.02*Mr*Cd)/ho
Lb 150.6376 in (0.086*ry*E)/Fy
The beams will be braced at the midpoint.

Figure 9: Design spreadsheet

15 | P a g e
 Figure 10: Connections – typ.

Figure 11: Connections – plan view

16 | P a g e
5.3 Final Design
Figures 12 and 13 show the plan view and final design members chosen. In order to achieve
the strong column, weak beam theory, the final design show large columns relative to the
beams. Figure 12 shows where the frames are located within the structure as they resist the
lateral loads of the earthquake.

Figure 12: Elevation view of structure

17 | P a g e
 Figure 13: Plan view of structure

6. Conclusion
More frames (8 in this case) were required for carrying seismic loads as compared to SCBF
(4) highlighting the higher flexibility of MRFs. It is challenging to find a column that is small
to resist earthquake loads in a structure that is the size of the one in this project. Therefore,
large W shape columns are likely to be what is chosen on projects similar to this one. This
raises the question, if the SMRF is the most efficient way to resist earthquake loads? As other
lateral force resisting steel systems are investigated and designed in future reports, it will give
an answer to if the moment frames are the best choice for building owners.

18 | P a g e
7. Appendix

7.1 Management Approach

This report is organized to illustrate the process the team implemented to design a special
moment resisting frame. It is composed of explanations and justifications of the loading
conditions, modeling in SAP2000, preliminary design, design iterations, and the final design.
Each member on the team contributed to this process in different and co-dependent ways. As
it has been determined that the team members have very few slots of mutually free time,
communication was the key to success this week. The team maintains its ability to
communicate freely and complete work in an efficient and thorough manner.

7.2 Minutes of Coordination in Meetings

Saturday 3/2/2019:
- 12:00 pm to 6:00 pm: The team began the preliminary design of the SMRF. Initially,
the earthquake loading was determined. Then the structure was modeled in SAP2000 with
preliminary section sizes. The drift of the structure was obtained using SAP2000 and was
used to iterate the size of the beams and columns.
Monday 3/4/2019:
- 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm: The design from the previous meeting was discussed, reviewed,
and optimized. A design spreadsheet was created to calculate the connection details and
requirements.
Tuesday 3/5/2019:
- 5:00 pm to 6:30 pm: The team discussed the final details required to finalized the
design of the SMRF and coordinated responsibilities for the final report.

19 | P a g e
7.3 Team Member Roles
Ariana Fay: Checked load calculations and edited the Excel spreadsheet that was used to
check the connection and section requirements.
Michael Murphy: Created the Excel spreadsheet that was used to check the connection and
section requirements. Also, created sketches of the frames located in the building.
Vidhi Solanki: Calculated the seismic forces on the building, ran preliminary design
calculations to choose the initial sections, and iterated to choose the optimum member sizes.
Snehasagar Gopagani: Generated the SAP2000 model, checked drift values, and assisted in
the iteration of the design.

20 | P a g e
7.4 Time Sheet
Table 10: Time sheet

CIE 524 Steel Structures

Spring 2019

Date Team Members

Ariana Fay Michael Murphy Vidhi Solanki Snehasagar Gopagani Total
5-Feb 0 0 0 0 0
6-Feb 1 2 2 1 6
7-Feb 2 1 1 1 5
8-Feb 0 1 1 1 3
9-Feb 0 1 1 1 3
10-Feb 0 0 0 0 0
11-Feb 0 1 0 0 1
12-Feb 1 1 1 0 3
13-Feb 1 1 1 2 5
14-Feb 0 0 0 0 0
15-Feb 1 2 4 4 11
16-Feb 0 6 8 8 22
17-Feb 0 0 0 0 0
18-Feb 4 1 5 4 14
19-Feb 8 2 4 4 18
20-Feb 6 4 3 2 15
21-Feb 2 2 0 0 4
22-Feb 1 1 1 1 4
23-Feb 0 0 2 2 4
24-Feb 0 0 2 2 4
25-Feb 4 4 0 0 8
26-Feb 2 3 2 2 9
27-Feb 2 1 2 3 8
28-Feb 2 3 1 1 7
1-Mar 0 0 0 0 0
2-Mar 0 0 6 6 12
3-Mar 0 0 0 0 0
4-Mar 5 7 3 2 17
5-Mar 2 3 2 2 9
6-Mar 3 4 1 2 10
7-Mar 5 5 3 4 17

21 | P a g e
7.5 Task Sheet
Table 11: Task sheet
CIE 524 Steel Structures
Spring 2019

Team Member Names Labor (hrs)

Ariana Fay 52
Michael Murphy 56
Vidhi Solanki 56
Snehasagar Gopagani 55

TASK DESCRIPTION COMPLETED BY TASK DURATION (hrs)

Ariana Fay 3
Michael Murphy 4
100 Team Management Report
Vidhi Solanki 4
Snehasagar Gopagani 3
Total 14
Ariana Fay 2
Michael Murphy 3
110 Peer Review of Team Management Report
Vidhi Solanki 3
Snehasagar Gopagani 2
Total 10
Ariana Fay 0
Michael Murphy 1
200 Choose Frame
Vidhi Solanki 0
Snehasagar Gopagani 1
Total 2
Ariana Fay 21
Michael Murphy 17
210 Design of SCBF
Vidhi Solanki 24
Snehasagar Gopagani 22
Total 84
Ariana Fay 11
Michael Murphy 12
211 Peer Review of SCBF
Vidhi Solanki 10
Snehasagar Gopagani 11
Total 44
Ariana Fay 15
Michael Murphy 19
220 Design of MRF
Vidhi Solanki 15
Snehasagar Gopagani 16
Total 65

22 | P a g e