## 4 Results
### Strand7 Results for DFF  
#### 4.1.1 Linear Static Analysis of DFF  
The linear static solver was used to obtain the maximum deflection of the structure in the vertical and lateral directions. This was done by measuring the maximum nodal displacement of the structure in each of the load combinations specified in Section 3.4.2.  
The vertical displacement of the structure was mainly influenced by the effect of the permanent (dead) and imposed (live) loads. Figure 4 illustrates the deformed shape of the structure, with a displacement scale of 10%. The maximum vertical displacement occurred in the mid-span of the structure, which is associated with the maximum moment of \(M_{max}=\frac{\text{W}L^{2}}{8}\).  
To obtain the critical load combination, the maximum downward vertical displacement for each load combination was recorded and summarised in Figure 5.  
It was observed that the maximum vertical displacement of the structure is equal to 0.00218 m and occurred under \(1.35G+1.5Q\). This load combination is considered the critical load combination of the structure and is associated with the ULS. Moreover,  
Figure 4: Deformed shape of DFF influenced by the dead and live loads.  
Figure 5: Maximum vertical displacement of DFF for each load combination.  
this load combination is influenced by the dead and live load and hence, it is expected to occur in the mid-span of the structure due to the configuration similar to a simply supported beam.  
The maximum lateral displacements were obtained by considering the wind effects in the lateral directions. Figure 6 represents the deformed shape of the structure due to the wind load in the X direction, with a displacement scale of 20%. The structure swayed due to the wind effect, with a 90-degree angle at the rigid joints. This caused tension and compression zones in each section, with the point of contraflexure in the middle of each section.  
Moreover, the maximum lateral displacements in the X direction were recorded and summarised in Figure 7.  
In this case, the critical load combination was \(1.35G+1.05Q+1.5W(X)\), and is associated with the ULS, which resulted in a maximum nodal displacement of 0.00275 m in the X direction. Moreover, the load combination \(1.35G+1.5Q\) also resulted in a similar displacement, which indicates the significant influence of the dead and live loads applied to the structure.  
Figure 6: Deformed shape of DFF influenced by the wind load in the X direction.  
Figure 7: Maximum lateral displacement of DFF in the X direction for each load combination.  
The effect of lateral displacement in the \(Z\) direction was also studied by capturing the deformed shape of the structure, as shown in Figure 8. As mentioned earlier, the structure consists of four cassettes. Hence, the lateral displacement in the \(Z\) direction is less problematic in practice. This is because of the support provided by the other cassettes, leading to a significant reduction in the lateral displacement. Moreover, it is reasonable to analyse the deformed shape in the \(Z\) direction similar to a cantilever beam, with the maximum bending and displacement experienced at the bottom and top of the structure, respectively.  
A maximum lateral displacement of 0.0000128 m was recorded in the \(Z\) direction. This displacement occurred under the critical load combination \(1.35G+1.05Q+1.5W(Z)\), which is associated with the ULS. The values of the maximum lateral displacements in the \(Z\) direction are summarised in Figure 9.  
Figure 8: Deformed shape of DFF influenced by the wind load in the \(Z\) direction.  
Figure 9: Maximum lateral displacement of DFF in the \(Z\) direction for each load combination.