# Design Exploration of Bamboo Shells Structures by Using Parametric Tools
## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Verification Results  
Table 5 presents the results obtained from Equations (1)-(3). Additionally, Table 6 includes the immediate and creep deflections obtained from the substitution of Equations (5) and (6) in (7). Table 6 shows that all cases achieved a greater deflection than  
Figure 4: Simulation of supports and loads in Karamba3D.  
the allowable value. This means that the beams did not support the requested loads. This situation would lead to the addition of beams with two or more culms to counteract the deflection. As previously mentioned, this work aimed to compare the values obtained from the NSR-10 code with respect to the values from the Karamba3D software. Future research must be focused on the revision of structural designs that support the requested loads.  
In Table 7, the bending stress results obtained from both the analytical procedure with the NSR-10 code and simulation with Karama3D are compared. Then, the Matching Percentage was calculated to determine the degree of coincidence between the two groups of results. The Matching Percentage was calculated by dividing the results of the Bending stress by Karamba3D column by those from the Bending stress by NSR-10 column. Therefore, a maximum matching percentage of 99% and a minimum of 81% were obtained in this study. Additionally, it can be inferred that Karamba3D verification was successful, so the software can be used to test the effectiveness of Guadua modelling. Similarly, a high matching percentage is depicted in the shear force results included in Table 8, where data were obtained by dividing the results of the Shear force by NSR-10 column by those from the Shear force by Karamba3D column. Regarding the shear stress values, Table 9 includes the results obtained from a simple calculation based on the NSR-10 code. However, Karamba3D does not permit this type of calculation. This is one limitation found in the software; therefore, the analytical study of GaK is still recommended.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Joists Spacing**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Beam Length**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Allowable** \\ **Deflection (cm)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Immediate** \\ **Deflection** \\ **(cm)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Creep** \\ **Deflections** \\ **(cm)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline Se & \(l\) & \(\Delta_{i}\) & \(\Delta_{f}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{0.4 m} & 4 m & 1.7 & 2.43 & 5.31 \\  & 5 m & 2.1 & 5.93 & 12.96 \\  & 6 m & 2.5 & 12.3 & 26.88 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{0.5 m} & 4 m & 1.7 & 2.96 & 6.33 \\  & 5 m & 2.1 & 7.22 & 15.44 \\  & 6 m & 2.5 & 14.97 & 32.03 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{0.6 m} & 4 m & 1.7 & 3.35 & 6.85 \\  & 5 m & 2.1 & 8.18 & 16.71 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 6 m & 2.5 & 16.97 & 34.65 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Bending stress values.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Joists Spacing**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Beam Length**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Bending Stress** \\ **by NSR-10 (cm)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Bending Stress** \\ **by Karamba3D** \\ **(cm)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Matching** \\ **Percentage** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline Se & \(l\) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{0.4 m} & 4 m & 5.31 & 4.68 & 88\% \\  & 5 m & 12.96 & 12.89 & 99\% \\  & 6 m & 26.88 & 28.91 & 93\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{0.5 m} & 4 m & 6.33 & 5.14 & 81\% \\  & 5 m & 15.44 & 13.85 & 90\% \\  & 6 m & 32.03 & 31.1 & 97\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{0.6 m} & 4 m & 6.85 & 5.7 & 83\% \\  & 5 m & 16.71 & 15.09 & 90\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & 6 m & 34.65 & 33.09 & 95\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Comparison of deflection values.