Bibliographic citations
Balarezo, C., Casimiro, R. (2022). Evaluación de la respuesta estructural en una edificación aporticada, con sistema constructivo de losas U-Boot Beton, losa Vigacero y una convencional, Trujillo – 2022 [Tesis, Universidad Privada del Norte]. https://hdl.handle.net/11537/31962
Balarezo, C., Casimiro, R. Evaluación de la respuesta estructural en una edificación aporticada, con sistema constructivo de losas U-Boot Beton, losa Vigacero y una convencional, Trujillo – 2022 [Tesis]. PE: Universidad Privada del Norte; 2022. https://hdl.handle.net/11537/31962
@misc{renati/511797,
title = "Evaluación de la respuesta estructural en una edificación aporticada, con sistema constructivo de losas U-Boot Beton, losa Vigacero y una convencional, Trujillo – 2022",
author = "Casimiro Garcia, Rodin Danny",
publisher = "Universidad Privada del Norte",
year = "2022"
}
The present investigation is the evaluation of the structural response in a framed building with a construction system of U-Boot Beton slabs, Vigacero and conventional slabs in the city of Trujillo. The methodology to be used is of a non-experimental type applied because there are already theoretical approaches to the variables through a cross-sectional design. The results obtained in the present investigation is that the U Boot Beton Slab - Vigacero Slab with respect to cost, time and safety in construction is better than the conventional framed slab. For this study, a non-experimental design was used, of the descriptive cross-sectional type, where the population and the sample were determined by means of the Intentional Non-Probabilistic Sampling technique, the observation technique, with the help of a computer program for the measurement of the objectives. Finally, the seismic performance evaluation was presented according to the basic performance objectives recommended by the Vision 2000 Committee. Thus, it was found that 100% of the buildings do not meet the goal of being fully operational for frequent earthquakes, 37% meet the the operational objective for the service earthquake, 6% meet the life safety objective for the design earthquake, and 100% of the buildings do not meet the collapse prevention objective for the maximum earthquake.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License