## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Rapid Interactive Structural Analysis – 3 Dimensional

Verification Problems

26632 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 210 Foothill Ranch, California 92610 (949) 951-5815 (949) 951-5848 (FAX) www.risa.com

Copyright 2013 by RISA Technologies, LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of the contents of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any means without the express written permission of RISA Technologies, LLC. We have done our best to insure that the material found in this publication is both useful and accurate. However, please be aware that errors may exist in this publication, and that RISA Technologies, LLC makes no guarantees concerning accuracy of the information found here or in the use to which it may be put.

Table of Contents

Verification Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Verification Problem 1: Truss Model Axial Forces Comparison .......................................................................... 2 Verification Problem 2: Cantilever Deflection ............................................................................................................. 4 Verification Problem 3: Hot Rolled Steel Frame Member Loads ......................................................................... 6 Verification Problem 4: Cantilever with Thermal Loads......................................................................................... 8 Verification Problem 5: Hot Rolled Steel Design Calculations ............................................................................ 10 Verification Problem 6: Curved Member Forces ...................................................................................................... 40 Verification Problem 7: Beam Frequency ................................................................................................................... 42 Verification Problem 8: Plate Deflections.................................................................................................................... 44 Verification Problem 9: Dynamic (Response Spectra) Analysis ........................................................................ 47 Verification Problem 10: Wood Design Calculations .............................................................................................. 50 Verification Problem 11: Tapered Hot Rolled Steel Frame Design ................................................................... 62 Verification Problem 12: P-Delta Analysis .................................................................................................................. 67 Verification Problem 13: Projected Loads .................................................................................................................. 73 Verification Problem 14: Solid Elements Comparison ........................................................................................... 76 Verification Problem 15: AISC 14th Edition Tension Members ......................................................................... 78 Verification Problem 16: AISC 14th Edition Compression Members ................................................................ 80 Verification Problem 17: AISC 14th Edition Bending Members .......................................................................... 82 Verification Problem 18: AISC 14th Edition Shear Members ............................................................................... 84 Verification Problem 19: AISC 14th Edition Combined Forces and Torsion .................................................. 86 Verification Problem 20: Aluminum Compression Members ............................................................................. 88 Verification Problem 21: Aluminum Bending Members ....................................................................................... 93

i

The RISA-3D solutions for each of these problems are compared to either hand calculations or solutions from other well established programs. RISA-2D Verification Due to the similarities in the two programs.Verification Overview Verification Methods We at RISA Technologies maintain a library of dozens of test problems used to validate the computational aspects of RISA programs. in some cases the input and assumptions we use in the test problems may not match what a design engineer would do in a “real world” application. There are instances where SAPIV results have been proven to be incorrect. such as the Berkeley SAPIV program. These test problems should not necessarily be used as design examples.0. The files are Verification Problem 1. The likelihood that both programs will give the same wrong answers is considered extremely remote. Verification Version This document contains problems that have been verified in RISA-3D version 11. we have created RISA-2D model files (. just read in the appropriate data file and have at it. this document can also be used to verify RISA-2D.r3d for problem 2.0. By “well established” we mean programs that have been in general use for many years. The data for each of these verification problems is provided. Additional testing and hand calculations are used to verify which solution (if either) is correct. Therefore. When you install RISA-3D these data files are copied into the C:\RISA\Examples directory. The input for these test problems was formulated to test RISA-3D’s performance. Verification Problem 2.r2d files) for each two-dimensional verification problem and have included them in the C:\RISA\Examples folder of your RISA-2D installation. we don’t automatically assume SAPIV is correct. those results are correct. etc. In this verification package we present a representative sample of these test problems for your review. The reasoning is if two or more independently developed programs that use theoretically sound solution methods arrive at the same results for the same problem. 1 . If you want to run any of these problems yourself. not necessarily to show how certain structures should be modeled.1 and RISA-2D version 11. The original SAPIV program is still the basis for several commercial programs currently on the market (but not RISA3D).r3d for problem 1. If discrepancies occur between the RISA-3D and the SAPIV results during testing.

2 . The end supports were traditional pin and roller constraints.7 on page 171 of Structural Analysis and Design by Ketter. Lee. For this solution “Q” is taken as 10 kN and “a” is taken as 2 meters (standard metric units). and Prawel.1. Figure 1. The text lists “Q” as the load magnitude and “a” as the panel width. thus they behave as truss elements. The members are pinned at both ends. After solution. The joint equilibrium method may be used to solve statically determinate structures only. the axial force results calculated by RISA-3D are then compared with axial force results presented in the text.Truss Model This problem provides a comparison of the stiffness method used in RISA-3D with the joint equilibrium method used in the text.Verification Problem 1 Problem Statement This problem is a typical truss model (please see Figure 1.1 below). This particular problem is presented as example 3. while the stiffness method can solve wither determinate or indeterminate models. Validation Method The model was created in RISA-3D using W10x17 steel shapes pinned at both ends.

590 0. opposite of RISA-3D’s sign convention.180 0.590 5.131 39.00 Table 1.750 0.180 11. the results match exactly.131 0.Comparison Axial Force Comparison (All Forces in kN) Member RISA-3D Text % Difference M1 39.1 – Force Comparison As seen above. 3 . Therefore the signs of the RISA results have been adjusted to match.00 M7 11.750 -23.00 M13 5. Note: The text lists tension as positive and compression as negative.00 M17 -23.

000 in4 J = 1 in4 Therefore the theoretical solution values are: Δ = -8989.1 – Cantilever Model Validation Method The RISA-3D solution will be compared with the theoretical displacement and rotation for a cantilever with a load at its end (see Table 2. The cantilever is 2499 feet in length.000 ksi A = 10 in2 I = 10.Verification Problem 2 Problem Statement This model is simply a cantilever with a vertical load applied at the end. the following values were used: P = -1 K L = 2499’ (29988”) E = 100. This problem tests the numerical accuracy of RISA-3D. each 1 ft in length (see Figure 2.2 inches θ = -0.1).44964 radians 4 . Any significant precision errors would show up dramatically in a model like this. modeled using a series of 2499 general section beams.1). Figure 2. The equations are: Displacement: Rotation: For this model.

2 0.009 Table 2.009 Cantilever Solution Comparison (Sparse Accelerated Solver) Value RISA-3D Theoretical % Difference Displacement (in) -8989.2 0.28 -8989.4496 -0.001 Rotation (rad) -0.001 Rotation (rad) -0.44964 0.Comparison Cantilever Solution Comparison (Standard Skyline Solver) Value RISA-3D Theoretical % Difference Displacement (in) -8989.29 -8989.44964 0.1 – Results Comparison Conclusion As seen above. the results match exactly or have negligible difference. 5 .4496 -0.

point loads.1 – Frame Model Validation Method The RISA-3D results are compared with the solution of this model using the Berkeley SAPIV program (see Table 3. The members in this model are loaded with full distributed loads.Verification Problem 3 Problem Statement This model is a small 3D frame with oblique members (see Figure 3.1).1). SAPIV has been used widely in various forms for well over 20 years. Many commercial programs currently on the market can be traced back to the original SAPIV program. Figure 3. the loads are used to test RISA-3D against itself. The purpose of this model is to test RISA-3D’s handling of member loads. partial length distributed loads. The solution for these applied loads is compared to the RISA-3D automatic self weight calculation. and moments in various load combinations. 6 . For example. In some cases. the self weight capability will also be tested by calculating a set of distributed loads equivalent to the member’s self weight. joint loads.

407 0.530 2 Mz (k-ft) 18. Conclusion As can be seen above.151 -10. Load Case 8 is the automatic self weight calculation.880 Table 3.606 18.535 7. the results match very closely.799 -7.690 -10.878 * 8 Axial (k) 8.1 – Force Comparison % Difference 0.010 0. Load Case 7 is the self weight defined as applied loads.052 0.067 0.711 -31.610 6 Mz (k-ft) -31.013 0.056 0.800 4 My (k-ft) 4.021 0.480 5 Y-Shear (k) 3.000 0. so compare Load Case 7 results to those of Load Case 8.450 6 Z.066 0. Any slight variations in the results can be attributed to round off differences. 7 .880 3. SAPIV Load Combination Force RISA-3D SAPIV 7 Axial (k) 8.359 -17.Shear (k) -7.035 0.056 0.150 6 My (k-ft) 7.690 5 My (k-ft) 2.883 * 3 Axial (k) -17.350 5 Mz (k-ft) -10.460 2.000 *These results are those in which RISA-3D tested against itself.477 4.700 1 Mz (k-ft) -10.Comparison Member M1 M1 M9 M9 M9 M10 M10 M11 M11 M11 M12 M12 Member Force Comparison: RISA-3D vs.

For example. Following are those calculations: Property Values: Area (A) Young’s Modulus (E) Thermal Load (ΔT) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (α) Spring Stiffness (K) Length (L) The unrestrained thermal expansion (∆Free) is: The general equation for the displacement of a member due to an axial load (∆Axial) is: = 50 cm2 = 70. This model uses a spring to provide partial resistance to the thermal load. but for thermal loading. Conversely.1). This is realistic in that members generally would have only partial resistance to thermal effects. Thermal loads cause structural behavior somewhat different from other loads. As the model is loaded thermally the spring resist some.000012 cm/cm°C = 500 kN/cm = 10 meters 8 .000 MPa = 300° = 0. but not all. For gravity loads. displacements cause stress to be relieved. a fixed-fixed member that undergoes the same thermal loading would see a stress increase with no displacements. a free end cantilever that undergoes a thermal loading would expand without resistance and thus no stress. The model is a five member cantilever with a spring in the local x direction at the free end (see Fig.Verification Problem 4 Problem Statement This model is used to test the thermal force calculations in RISA-3D.1). The theoretically exact solution may be calculated for comparison with the RISA-3D result. 4.1 – Thermal Model Validation Method The model is validated by the use of hand calculations (see Table 4. displacements induce stress. of the thermal expansion. Figure 4.

Think of it as the spring force pushing the member end back this resisted expansion distance. therefore: So. the following is true: In other words.482 741.1 – Results Comparison Conslusion As can be seen above.20 RISA-3D 1. ∆Actual = 1. the results match exactly.” Now we’ll say “P” is the force in the spring. This leads to the equation for the actual displacement: The force in the member is: ( So for the given property values.18 Table 4. using these formulations.482 741. 9 . the “resisted expansion” of the member is the thermal expansion that is not allowed to occur because of the spring and is equal to ∆Free*-∆Actual.482 cm Force = 741.We’ll call the actual displacement of the member “∆Actual.2 kN ) Comparison Thermal Results Comparison Solution Method Displacement (cm) Axial Force (kN) Exact 1.

Channel. At least one member of each type (WF. 5. These hand calculation values are used to validate the results given by RISA-3D (see Tables 5. Note the use of the inactive code “Exclude” to isolate only those members to be checked. This problem is used to verify the stress and steel code check calculations in RISA-3D. The steel codes used are the AISC 360-10 (14th Edition) ASD and AISC 360-10 (14th Edition) LRFD.2). Tee. two story space frame. Figure 5. and Tube) is validated. The model is comprised of WF. Both ASD and LRFD codes will be checked. 10 .1 and 5.1 – Model Sketch Validation Method Following are the hand calculations for various members for various load combinations. Tee.Verification Problem 5 Problem Statement This verification model is a two bay. Channel.1). Stiffness Reduction per the Direct Analysis Method has been turned off for this example. and Tube members (see Fig.

Load Combination 1: 11 .ASD Hand Calculations Member M10.

12 .

Member M1. Load Combination 2: 13 .

14 .

Load Combination 3: 15 .Member M14.

16 .

Load Combination 2: 17 .Member M25.

18 .

Load Combination 4: 19 .Member M20.

20 .

21 .

Member M16. Load Combination 6: 22 .

23 .

24 .

25 .000 0.ASD Results Comparison Member M10 M1 M14 M25 M20 M16 ASD Unity Check Comparisons Load Combination RISA-3D Hand Calculations 1 0.235 1.063 0. the results match almost exactly.841 2 0.000 0.435 0. Any slight differences can be attributed to round off error or torsional effects.209 4 0.840 4.063 2 0.447 0.1 – ASD Comparisons % Difference 0.972 0.212 0.972 3 4.162 Conclusion As can be seen in the chart above.447 6 1.000 0.021 1.233 Table 5.

Load Combination 10: 26 .LRFD Hand Calculations Member M10.

27 .

Member M1. Load Combination 11: 28 .

29 .

Load Combination 12: 30 .Member M14.

31 .

Load Combination 11: 32 .Member M25.

33 .

Member M20. Load Combination 13: 34 .

35 .

Member M16, Load Combination 15:

36

37

38

Any slight differences can be attributed to round off error or torsion effects.914 11 0.374 0.913 3.128 0.000 0.2.058 0. the results match almost exactly.LRFD Results Comparison Member M10 M1 M14 M25 M20 M16 LRFD Unity Check Comparisons Load Combination RISA-3D Hand Calculations 10 0.144 Conclusion As can be seen in the chart above.724 0.163 0.LRFD Comparisons % Difference 1.172 13 0.174 0.374 15 1.782 12 3.026 1.388 Table 5.390 1. 39 .057 11 0.783 0.

Uniform loads and self weight are applied. Figure 6.1 – Model Sketch 40 . SAPIV and GTStrudl were both originally developed as mainframe programs using the FORTRAN language. The structure is a series of short concrete steps. The primary use of this problem is to validate RISA-3D against an accepted program other than SAPIV. RISA-3D. while RISA-3D has been developed as a microcomputer application using the C language.1). modeled as beams (see Figure 6.Verification Problem 6 Problem Statement This problem is a spiral staircase model solved using both RISA-3D and GTStrudl. and GTStrudl were independently developed and thus can be validated against one another. SAPIV.

1 – Force Comparison % Difference 0.00 0.00 0. If the member forces match.1).19 My (k-ft) -29.00 0.73 Mz (k-ft) 2.94 Z-Shear (k) -14.00 0.62 Y-Shear (k) 8.14 Table 6.88 Torque (k-ft) -0.94 8.00 Conclusion As seen above. the results match exactly.88 -14. 41 .14 2.19 -0.00 0.Validation Method The member forces calculated by RISA-3D are compared with the GTStrudl member forces (see Table 6.62 20.73 -29. it is reasonable to assume the joint displacements also match since the member forces are derived from the joint displacements. GTStrudl Force RISA-3D Result GTStrudl Result Axial (k) 20. Comparison Member M1 M5 M7 M10 M15 M18 Force Comparison: RISA-3D vs.

modeled as a series of 50 individual beam elements (see Figure 7.000 in4 & Izz = 20. This means each frequency calculated by the Eigensolver should be duplicated (once for each bending axis). The first ten frequencies for a simply supported beam. Robert D. to get the first ten separate frequencies. are calculated.1 – Model Sketch Validation Method The frequencies calculated by RISA-3D will be compared to the “exact” frequencies presented by Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shape by Dr. Figure 7. So.Verification Problem 7 Problem Statement This problem is designed to test the dynamic solution. The beam is also modeled with nearly identical stiffness properties for its y-y and z-z bending axes (Iyy = 20. The equation presented by Blevins for the transverse frequencies is: ( ) √ The equation presented by Blevins for the longitudinal frequencies is: 42 .1 in4).000. Blevins (see Table 7. we ask for 19 frequencies to be calculated.1).1).

it is not duplicated. .003 31.643 2.000 2. Conclusion As can been seen above.158 31.573 5.000 0.017 0. it appears only once.017 5. 2.789 10.790 10.1 – Frequency Comparison % Difference 0.) For our model: E = 30.643 0.000 0.00074885 slugs/in3 Comparison Frequency Comparison: RISA-3D vs.699 52.158 31.168 0.000 10. the results match almost exactly.573 0.292 16.643 2.000 23.000 0. Blevins Frequency No.( Where: Г = i*π m = mass per unit µ = mass density ) √ i = frequency number (i = 1.000 0.170 41.003 0. 9 is the first longitudinal frequency.000 in4 m = 0.082 0.520 0.168 41.106 RISA-3D % RISA-3D y-y Axis Values (Hz) Difference z-z Axis Values (Hz) 0.010 *Note: Frequency No.521 41.692 0.520 41. 3 .000 0.085 23.292 16.017 52.292 0. 43 .000 ksi I = 20.158 0.789 0.101 Table 7.101 0.019 0. .005 0.019 16.010 52.005 41.10783 slugs/in µ = 0.082 23. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Blevins Value (Hz) 0.573 5.

1 – Model Sketch Validation Method This model is validated by comparing the deflections and rotations at the free ends of each cantilever (see Table 8. The model is of two cantilever beams. the first modeled using a mesh of finite elements. an in-plane. membrane action and “twist.1). vertical membrane load. Figure 8.1). and the second modeled using a rectangular beam (see Figure 8. These results will also be checked against theoretical hand calculations. These are an out-of-plane bending load. Following are these calculations: 44 .Verification Problem 8 Problem Statement This problem is used to test plate/shell elements for bending. Three different loadings applied at the free ends of the cantilevers are considered. and a torsional twisting moment.” The problem also gives a verification of a rectangular beam member for torsion.

000 in4 Therefore.Property Values: Beam Depth (D) Beam Width (B) Area (A) Length (L) Young’s Modulus (E) Shear Modulus (G) Bending load applied at the free end (Pb) Membrane load applied at the free end (Pm) Torsional load applied at the free end (T) Moment of Inertia for the Bending Load (Ib) Moment of Inertia for the Membrane Load (Im) The torsional stiffness (J) is given by: For: 2a = D = 60 in a = 30 in 2b = B = 6 in b = 3 in [( ) ( ) ( )] = 60 in = 6 in = 360 in2 = 30 ft = 4000 ksi = 1539 ksi = 50 kips = 5000 kips = 625 k-ft (7500 k-in) = 1080 in4 = 108. for the given property values: The free end deflection due to the bending load is: [( ) ( )] The free end deflection due to the membrane load is: [( ) ( )] The free end rotation due to the torsional load is: ( ) 45 .

) 0.434 rad 0.038 in Membrane (Y) 180.Comparison Free End Deflection Comparison: Plates vs. the results match very closely. Beams Loading Plates/Shells Beam Theory Bending (X) 179.899 in Torsion (X Rot.403 rad 0.825 in 183.1 – Deflection Comparison Conclusion As can be seen above.725 in 180.434 rad Table 8.038 in 180. 46 .052 in 183.

5 for the SY.52 in4. The model will be analyzed in all three global directions using the CQC modal combination method with 5% damping. 47 . Self weight was not included in the model solution. Multipliers were applied to the S1 spectra as follows: 1. and 0. The mass used for the dynamic solution consists of concentrated loads to all the free joints. The model for this problem is essentially a flagpole with asymmetric triangular projections at five elevations (see Fig. These spectral results will be added using the SRSS spatial combination option and then compared to the results of the same model in SAP2000. the reaction at the free end. Figure 9. The asymmetric projections of the “flagpole” will ensure that there is a large amount of modal coupling between the lateral modes. 0. and the spectral displacements at the tip of the upper triangle will be calculated by RISA-3D and then compared against the same model run in SAP2000 (see Tables 9.Verification Problem 9 Problem Statement This problem is used to test the Dynamic Analysis and the Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) features in RISA-3D. A model with no modal coupling will give the same spatially combined spectral results using the SRSS rule or an absolute sum.1). mass participation factors. This is desirable because it will highlight any errors in the SRSS spatial combination.1-9.1 – Model Sketch Validation Method The model was built as shown above made up of rectangular steel sections with the J value assumed to equal 182. The reactions at the fixed end and the displacements at the top triangle tip will check the RSA and the SRSS combination feature. 9.0 for the SX.4). The three separate results will also be combined as an absolute sum and compared to the results of the SRSS reactions. The frequencies. The 1994 UBC design spectra for soil type S1 will be the response spectra used to obtain the spectral results.3 for the SZ. The comparison of the frequencies and the mass participation will be to check the dynamic solution and RSA.

81 33.61 26.01 0.47 22.25 0.05 0.99 25.51 16.84 1.31 1.06 0.10 -99.11 0.06 16.76 0.80 0.83 0.91 6.48 25.37 0.12 0.22 0.46 14.29 5.90 1.96 0.78 22.02 3.21 0.01 0.10 75.41 1.26 14.73 15.78 20.03 1.04 52.18 0.02 3.89 3.56 0. the frequencies and mass participation factors match almost exactly for all modes.08 0.05 1.07 0.45 0.01 1.76 0.54 0.03 9.94 93.14 0.44 16.95 9.31 0.60 16.91 5.95 4.94 14.1 – Frequencies and Mass Participation Factors Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Total As can be seen in the chart above.25 0.89 0.99 16.01 0.01 0.70 0.96 0.55 0.Comparison Frequencies and Mass Participation Factors by Mode RISA-3D Results SAP2000 Results Mass Participation (%) Mass Participation (%) Freq.94 0.02 1.87 0.59 16.78 0. (Hz) SX SY SZ Freq.73 1.08 10. (Hz) SX SY SZ 0.83 0.55 0.92 1.48 0.03 6.10 1.49 1.31 1.12 12.67 0.03 8.82 0.17 0.86 Table 9.61 26.46 0.67 0.36 2.87 3.69 15.37 0.19 0.04 1.03 0.05 1.12 0.00 33.53 12.44 47.14 0.46 0.94 1.88 1.99 34.14 18.51 16.27 5.03 1.48 0.12 10.59 0.03 7.81 52.94 1.93 0.75 0.77 1.33 36.30 0.14 18.73 2.94 28.93 0.94 0.29 5.01 66.12 9.17 0.61 0.12 10.63 0.06 1.93 93.05 20.16 49.49 18.16 98.32 34.05 0.96 9.92 -99.02 0.93 0.06 1.31 0.37 14.18 0.10 1.18 0.31 0.01 81.50 1.12 0.44 16.01 0.56 15.94 4.98 28.89 0.01 0.07 0.39 8.04 1.17 98.37 0.18 0.12 0.55 0.64 0.39 7.05 1.56 0.02 0.10 0.15 49.35 0.11 79.13 0.35 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.11 80.01 73.20 0.47 0.18 0.01 0.04 36.41 1.08 10. 48 .36 2.85 0.77 1.07 0.44 47.34 0.11 0.85 1.92 66.11 72.27 2.46 0.53 15.41 29.96 0.14 0.29 0.44 29.01 0.64 0.49 18.

09 0.00 1.82 254.44 1.80 59.60 289. As can be seen.97 8.17 8.00 0. the deflections at the tip of the top level are almost exactly the same.24 1.14 41.82 251.88 N3 55.42 30. As shown above. SY.08 46.SY.52 30.00 0.09 0.18 0.3 – Tip Deflections These reactions were obtained from the SRSS combination of all three spectral results (SX. 49 .13 0.62 497. and SZ RSA's Program Node RX (k) RY (k) RZ (k) MX (k-ft) MY (k-ft) MZ (k-ft) RISA-3D N1 64.94 28.85 0. and SZ).79 16.34 0.42 Table 9. Absolute Sum Spatial Combination of the SX.75 0.06 1.Program RISA-3D SAP2000 % Difference Comparison of the Fixed End Spectral Reactions RX RY RZ Node (k) (k) (k) MX (k-ft) MY (k-ft) N1 55.05 SAP2000 N78 29.4 – Spatial Combination Note: The signs of the RISA results have been adjusted to match SAP2000 sign convention The chart above shows all three spectral reactions (in absolute terms) from RISA-3D combined together as an absolute sum.75 28. Comparison of the Top Level Deflections (at the Tip of the Flagpole Projection) Z Program Node X (in) Y (in) (in) ΘX (rad) ΘY (rad) ΘZ (rad) RISA-3D N21 29.05 % Difference -1.34 0. This is included in order to compare the results to those of the SRSS spatial combination.00 Table 9.and SZ).98 540. SY. As shown above.00 Table 9. the reactions are quite a bit larger than those from the SRSS combination calculation.86 Note: The signs of the RISA results have been adjusted to match SAP2000 sign convention These reactions were obtained from the SRSS combination of all three spectral results (SX.30 502. the reactions at the fixed end are also almost identical.90 -0.50 0.18 0.2 – Spectral Reactions MZ (k-ft) 41.05 35.36 15.

The model is loaded with combinations of Dead Load.1) is made up of several different shapes. The two bay portal frame model (see Fig. A different CD (Load Duration) factor is used for each load combination. The member stresses (axial. with one bay braced in the X-direction. and combined beam/column members. 50 . beams. All code check calculations and wood properties are from the AF&PA NDS-12 including the Supplement (see Table 10.1. such as columns. 10. and Lateral (Wind) Load.Verification Problem 10 Problem Statement This problem tests the AF&PA NDS-12 ASD code check. and grades of lumber. and shear) will also be calculated as part of the verification. species. bending.Model Sketch Validation Method Following are the hand calculations for various members for various load combinations. Live Load. Figure 10.1). Several different situations commonly encountered in wood design are shown here.

Member M1. Load Combo 3: (DL +LL+Wind) 51 .

52 .

Member M2. Load Combo 2: (DL +LL) 53 .

9-3). (fc/Fc’)2 ). if the bending goes to zero. 3.6.*Note: For some members the limitations in section 3. the equation will automatically square the compression portion. This is because in the Compression-Bending Interaction equation (Eqn. 54 . This section allows us to use the compression portion without squaring it to know the true capacity of the compression-only member. lowering it from what we know to be the actual capacity ( fc/Fc’ vs.3 control over any of the equations.

Load Combo 3: (DL +LL+Wind) 55 .Member M3.

56 .

Member M5. Load Combo 1: (DL Only) 57 .

58 .

Load Combo 3: (DL +LL+Wind) 59 .Member M6.

6.3 control over any of the equations. 3. the equation will automatically square the compression portion. 60 .*Note: For some members the limitations in section 3. This section allows us to use the compression portion without squaring it to know the true capacity of the compression-only member. lowering it from what we know to be the actual capacity ( fc/Fc’ vs. (fc/Fc’)2 ). if the bending goes to zero.9-3). This is because in the Compression-Bending Interaction equation (Eqn.

494 % Difference 0.03 0.046 2.047 2. 61 .00 Table 10.Comparison NDS 2012 Wood Bending Check Comparisons Member M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 Load Combo 3 2 3 1 3 RISA-3D 0.1 – Bending Unity Check Comparison Conclusion As seen in the chart above. the results match very closely.333 0.254 3.429 0.254 3.332 0.00 0.494 Hand Calc 0.00 0.30 0. The cause for any slight differences can be attributed to numerical round off.429 0.

1. Gravity self weight will also be applied. 11. 11.1). Steel Code and the AISC Design Guide #25: Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members. The ASD code checks on the tapered WF sections (for member properties see Table 11. Selected joint deflections. A typical single bay with a sloped roof (see Fig.3). Since each tapered WF member is modeled internally as a 14 piecewise prismatic “member.4) will be compared to hand calculations using the ASD 14th Ed. and member point loads. Figure 11. 62 . reactions.1-11. Loading will consist of vertical member projected loads. which is modeled with 14 piecewise prismatic sections for each tapered WF member in the original frame (see Fig. lateral member distributed loads.Verification Problem 11 Problem Statement This problem is used to test the tapered WF sections.” the results should match very closely. and member section forces will be compared (see Tables 11.1) will be analyzed using tapered WF sections for the columns and beams.Model Sketch of Frames Validation Method The frame analyzed with tapered WF sections will be compared to a similar frame.

and at the peak.97 -30. and top right corner.750 Table 11.533 -15.659 -10.091 MZ (k-ft) 0 41.2 – Base Reactions The reactions were checked at the two base nodes.501 M60 -99.3 – Member Forces 5 1 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 1 Mz x y Mz Mz Mz Mz y Mz x 108. or kDirection Direction Location ft) Location ft) 5 1 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 1 Mz x y Mz Mz Mz Mz y Mz x 108.78 M46 17.091 MZ (k-ft) 0 41. the results match almost exactly.859 Y (k) 18.002 0.533 17.749 Node N6 N10 Equivalent "Piecewise" Frame X (k) 5.914 108.779 M60 -14.002 0.290 Equivalent "Piecewise" Frame Node N7 N8 N9 Direction X Y X Deflection (in) -0. As seen above.628 M32 -30.859 Y (k) 18. the results match exactly.972 M47 99.916 M32 108. the results match almost exactly.972 M19 -30.Member Cut (k.290 Table 11.877 -3.533 17.091 M33 Table 11.781 17. 63 .629 M18 18.631 -30.877 -3. As is seen in the chart above.781 -14. or k.091 The section forces were checked at the base of the columns. Member M1 M1 M2 M2 M2 M3 M3 M3 M4 M4 Comparison of Member Section Forces – Load Combination 1 Tapered WF Frame Equivalent "Piecewise" Frame Section Value Section Value Local Local Cut (k.499 -99. at the corner joints. respectively. peak.631 18.Comparison Comparison of Joint Deflections – Load Combination 1 Tapered WF Frame Node N2 N3 N4 Direction X Y X Deflection (in) -0.659 -10.1 – Joint Deflections The joint deflections were checked at the top left corner. As can be seen in the chart above.533 M5 -15.97 99. Comparison of Base Reactions – Load Combination 1 Tapered WF Frame Node N1 N5 X (k) 5.

Load Combination 2 (Per AISC Design Guide 25): 64 .Tapered Section Properties Tapered WF Properties Taper Start Taper End Total Depth (in) 7 14 Web Thickness (in) 0.375 0.375 Table 11.4 – Section Properties AISC 14th ASD Code Check for M2.25 0.25 Flange Width (in) 6 6 Flange Thickness (in) 0.

65 .

Conclusion As seen above. the results match the RISA-3D result within a reasonable amount of error. 66 .

These values were then compared to one another in order to examine the effect of P-Delta on the lateral displacement of frames. The applied loads were entered as those given in Figure 12.1) by using several different methods both in RISA-3D and by hand.2.1 – P-Delta Concept A model was built per the description given in the example. P-Delta Displacements Figure 12. The beams and columns were entered as the given wide flange sections shown in Figure 12.order lateral displacements (see Figure 12. The hand verification of this problem is similar to that given in The Seismic Design Handbook by Farzad Naeim(Example 7-1).2) 120 psf 100 psf 30 ft Varies by level (see Figure 12.Floor Gravity Load – Roof Frame Tributary Width Story Height = = = = = Varies by level (see Figure 12. These methods are based on satisfying the new P-Delta design requirements found in current design codes. This model tests the first. Lateral Loads Gravity Load. A model was built per the description given in the text. first by those presented in the example and then in RISA-3D.3.3) 67 . The lateral displacements of each level were calculated using several different methods.and second.Verification Problem 12 Problem Description This problem represents a 10 story moment resistant steel frame.

Figure 12.Moment Frame Elevation with Applied Loads Shown 68 .2.

Figure 12.Moment Frame Elevation with Member Sizes and Dimensions Shown 69 .3 .

below.3) below shows the minimal difference between the SDH Methods. the Non-Iterative P-delta Method.Validation Method SDH Methods The Seismic Design Handbook utilizes two methods for analyzing the second order P-delta effects. This process is repeated until a reasonable convergence of data produces the final lateral displacement. These displacements are then re-applied to the model as secondary shears giving the user a modified set of displacements.Comparison of Deflections from each SDH Method 70 . Note: Because the example calculation does not account for axial shortening of the columns. Figure 12. See Table 12. is a hand calculated simplification of the iterative method. the elastic analysis in their methods differs by up to 2% from that of other methods outlined in this example. The second method. The first is an iterative process where an analytical model is first used to compute the first order displacements from the applied loads. the first order deflections are calculated using an applied lateral load and then multiplied by a magnification factor to account for the second order P-delta effects. SDH Comparison The graph (Figure 12. Using the assumption that story drift at any level is proportional only to the applied story shear at that level.3 .2 for a comparison of these deflections versus those of the RISA-3D P-Delta feature.

17 9. In this method. P-∆ effects are accounted for whenever the user requests it in the Load Combinations spreadsheet.182 0.192 0.94 0. But because RISA-3D second order analysis is based entirely on nodal deflections.5291 5. Non-Iterative Method Amplified Shears Level Applied Story Shear (k) Stability Index (θ) Amplified Shear (k) 10 30.Level 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Deflection Results Comparison (inches) SDH Modified Force RISA-3D with P% Difference Method Delta 8.1– SDH Deflection Comparison 0.5622 4.6706 8.34 0.1308 8.5394 5.1 below.6412 2. RISA-3D Methods In RISA-3D.211 0.5504 4.3 are obtained using 2 intermediate nodes on each column.83 0.05 23.3668 6.55 3 7.89 9 21. the first order lateral displacements are used to find Ѳ. the more accurate the solution.32 4.689 0.06 20.8393 0.Direct Hand Method Ѳ Values and Amplified Shears 71 . see Table 12.170 0.6468 1.5166 6. the effect of P-δ is not directly accounted for.199 0.34 5 12.6856 1.5689 2.22 6.02 30.4 below for a comparison of these effects on the solution.12 8 19.70 6 14.204 0.09 16.85 1 2.35 Table 12.841 Table 12.6853 8.22 0.145 7. Therefore. The hand calculation method used to verify the program results is the Non-Iterative Method from the Seismic Design Handbook.11 14.212 0.175 0.3534 7. the Stability Index.202 0. Please see Figure 12. TheRISA-3D (with P-∆ & P-δ) values in Table 12.03 4 10. This can be done with any number of additional nodes.84 7 17.45 0. with more nodes.08 18.97 0. the user must place additional nodes along the column length to account for the P-δ effects.5614 3. The amplified shear values are then found by multiplying the first order lateral displacements by 1/(1-Ѳ).57 0.2 .32 2 5.203 The program results match within a reasonable round off error.13 11.5715 3.08 0.71 0.20 0.

841 0.3766 6.4) below shows the minimal difference between the RISA Methods.5754 2.1551 7.332 Conclusion The program results match the textbook example within a reasonable round off error.141 0.5715 4.8581 0.164 0. Figure 12.124 0.1299 8.149 0.5547 5.5587 4.145 8.219 0.3668 7.182 0.Comparison of Deflections from Each RISA Method Level 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Deflection Results Comparison (inches) RISA-3D with P-∆ Non-Iterative Method RISA-3D with P-∆ & P-δ 8.524 6.3 – Non-Iterative Method Deflection Comparison % Increase for P-δ 0.6468 2.118 0.5891 3.356 7.277 0. 72 .6853 8.8438 Table 12.6956 8.5843 4.6937 0.6699 2.5689 3.4 .RISA-3D Comparison The graph (Figure 12.133 0.579 3.689 1.5504 5.5383 5.5291 6.6526 1.6686 8.7131 1.

Model Views 73 . Some of the beams are rotated about their local x-axis as noted below. Here we test distribution of member area loads for the Projected Area Only option. 13.1.Verification Problem 13 Problem Statement This model is a planar frame structure consisting of seven simply-supported W14x68 beams at a 30 degree incline to the vertical Y-axis (see Fig. using both global and projected directions.1ksf area load is applied to the frame in the Z direction. Figure 13. A 0.1 below).

1 14. Projected Width (in) (deg.083 Member M1 M2 M3 Shape W14X68 W14X68 W14X68 Table 13.1 0.151 0.1 Tot.] φ = local axis rotation angle [deg.66 10. The projected section depth and width: 𝑠𝜙 𝑠 𝜙 𝑡 𝑙 𝑗 𝑡 𝑊 𝑡ℎ Equivalent uniform member distributed loads can then be calculated for both the Global Z and Projected Z directions: 𝜔 𝜔 Where θ = vertical angle [deg.096 cos( ) 𝜌 𝜌 Table 13.1 – Global Direction Hand Calculations d (in) 14 14 14 Z Direction Projected Loads bf φ ρ Tot.00 15.00 ωZ (klf) 0.1 0.] ω = equivalent uniform member distributed load [k/ft] 𝜌 = uniform member area load [ksf] Z Direction Global Loads Member M1 M2 M3 Shape W14X68 W14X68 W14X68 d (in) 14 14 14 bf (in) 10 10 10 θ (deg.1 0.] dprojected = projected section depth [in. Projected Width (in) 14.2 – Projected Direction Hand Calculations 74 .131 0.) (ksf) (in) 10 10 10 0 60 90 0.] bf = total section width [in.00 ωZ (klf) 0.00 15.) 0 60 90 ρ (ksf) 0.] d = total section depth [in.) 30 30 30 φ (deg.66 10.135 0.Validation Method Envelope dimensions of the projected sections are used to calculate equivalent uniform member distributed loads.117 0.1 0.

117 0. 0.117 0.000 0. 75 .151 0.096 RISA-3D 0. the results match exactly.000 0.3 above.131 0.131 0.135 0.000 0.3 – Load Calculation Comparison Conclusion As seen in Table 13.000 0.083 Projected Z (k/ft) Theoretical RISA-3D 0. 0.135 0. ωZ Global Z (k/ft) Member M1 M2 M3 Theoretical 0.Comparison Equivalent Uniform Member Distributed Loads.151 0.096 %Diff.000 Table 13.000 0.083 %Diff.

Both are loaded with vertical point loads at the free end. Figure 14.Verification Problem 14 Problem Statement This model is a comparison of a concrete beam cantilever created with solids elements versus one modeled with the concrete beam element.1 – Model View 76 .

1 – Load Calculation Comparison Conclusion As seen in Table 14. per our hand calculation.1 above.372 0. P = 10 kips L = 10 ft = 120 in E = 3644 ksi (Conc4NW material) I = 1152 in4 Therefore. . Deflection at the tip of a cantilever beam is calculated as follows: Where.361 0. 77 . the results are within a reasonable difference from the hand calculations. Comparison For this model: Beam Deflection Comparison Element Solids Beam Node RISA-3D Bending Deflection (in) % Difference N1115 -1.Validation Method The deflections at the tip of each cantilever are compared to the values obtained by hand calculations.00 Table 14.80 N2137 -1.

Figure 15.Verification Problem 15 Problem Statement This model is a collection of members that verifies the AISC 360-10 specification for tension members from the AISC Design Examples 14th edition.1 – Model View 78 . Each of these is using the ASD design parameters and uses parameters from the individual problems.

677 162 0.2 L4X4X1/2 80.05 D.09 D.13 D.23 D.228 170 0. Comparison For this model: RISA AISC Value Value % Example Shape (kips) (kips) Difference D.4 HSS6X4X3/8 170.1 W8X21 184.1 – Tensile Yield Capacity comparison Comparison As seen in Table 15.85 175 0.431 184 0. therefore it does not check tensile rupture limit states.500 203.838 80.23 D.8 0. 79 .6 2L4X4X1/2 (1/2" Gap) 161.3 WT6X20 174.1 above.Validation Method In this example we are simply checking the tensile yield limit state. RISA does not know specific bolt hole locations.461 203 0.20 Table 15. the results are within a reasonable difference from the AISC hand calculations.5 HSS6x0.

Figure 16.Verification Problem 16 Problem Statement This model is a collection of members that verifies the AISC 360-10 specification for compression members from the AISC Design Examples 14th edition.1 – Model View 80 . Each of these is using the ASD design parameters and uses parameters from the individual problems.

80 626 LL4X3.5X3/8 (3/4" Gap) 84.1 – Compression Capacity comparison Example E.63 1.07 85.5 E. RISA AISC Value Value Shape (kips) (kips) W14X132 593. **Note that the program is using f = Fy per the user note on page 16. In many cases there is a “Table Solution” and a “Calculation Solution”. 81 .1A E.64 0.89 594 W14X90 617.1B E.6 10X Pipe 145.3 E.5.50 186 Table 16.8 WT7X34 85. However.15 0.0 LL3X5X1/4 (3/4" Gap) 43.50 42. Conclusion As seen in Table 16.12 % Difference 0. the example yields a KL = 8.81 *Note that the K for this shape was set to 1. the results are within a reasonable difference from the AISC hand calculations.08 0.43 147 Built-Up Unequal Flange 184.4 HSS12X10X3/8 344.38 0.44** 94. By taking K in RISA-3D = 1.03 0. Comparison This section is the tabular comparison of the RISA Program answers and the summary from the detailed validation results.7 E.87 0. The example defines K = 1.568.0 WT7X15 24.568 we can approach the hand calculated value. In each of these cases we are listing the “Calculation Solution”.51 344 HSS12X8X3/16 94.08 0.9 E.61’.07 618 WF (Slender Web) 336.11 E.6 E.15 0.8 E.5*(9/8.Validation Method In this example we are checking the compression capacity of members for all AISC limit states.4A E.43 0.61) =1. but a conservative 9’ is used.47 85.10 E.21 208 W14X82 (Col B-C)* 625.30 24.02 0.1 above.1-43 of the AISC 360-10 specification.17 1.71 338 WF (Slender Flange) 206.2 E.

Verification Problem 17 Problem Statement This model is a collection of members that verifies the AISC 360-10 specification for flexural members from the AISC Design Examples 14th edition. Figure 17.1 – Model View 82 . Each of these is using the ASD design parameters and is built with the exact specifications from the example problems.

04 1.331 81.088 4.35 Mnz/Ω 0. Comparison Example F.05 0.3A F.268 191.8 54.851 33.142 4.1-3A F.996 201.39 0.282 0.00 0.775 334.10 F.664 2.2-2A F.95 28. 83 .664 2.644 AISC Value 0.04 Table 17.00 Live Load Deflection 2 1.13 0.17 0.9A F.13 LC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Capacity (k*ft) Mnz/Ω Mnz/Ω Mnz/Ω Mnz/Ω Mnz/Ω Mnz/Ω Mnz/Ω Mny/Ω Mnz/Ω Mnz/Ω Mnz/Ω Mnz/Ω Mnz/Ω Mnz/Ω RISA Value 251.3 87 265 334 81.1-1A F.10 0.38 0.00 0.4 4.87 33.257 87.13 0.9 28.11 0.5 F.23 0.8 % Difference 0.8A F.2-1A F.44 37.08 0.60 0.1 – Flexural Capacity Comparison Example F.863 54.148 264.6 F.8A Deflection (in) Live Load Deflection Total Deflection LC 2 1 RISA Value 0.4 F.12 F.283 Table 17.7A F.2 – Member Deflection Comparison Conclusion As seen in the tables above.3A F.Validation Method In this example we are checking the flexural strength of members subject to simple bending about one principal axis as well as member deflections in some of the members.35 0. the results are within a reasonable difference from the AISC hand calculations.1-2A F.22 0.206 91.08 0.2-1A F.66 % Difference 0.1 4.683 AISC Value 252 201 191 91.43 37.

1 – Model View 84 .Verification Problem 18 Problem Statement This model is a collection of members that verifies the AISC 360-10 specification for shear members from the AISC Design Examples 14th edition. Figure 18. Each of these is using the ASD design parameters and is built with the exact specifications from the example problems.

8 16.09 0.5 G.1 – Shear Comparison Conclusion As seen in Table 18.3 % Difference 0.9 L5x3x¼ HSS6x4x3/8 HSS16x3/8 W21x48 C9x20 Capacity Value (kips) Vny/Ω Vny/Ω Vny/Ω Vny/Ω Vny/Ω Vnz/Ω Vnz/Ω RISA Value (kips) 203.2 57.82 77.605 16.11 0.756 28.7 Shape W24x62 C15x33.Validation Method In this example we are checking the shear capacity of singly or doubly symmetric members with shear in the plane of the web.25 0. the results are within a reasonable round-off difference from the AISC hand calculation.1 above.6 G.4 G.18 0.168 57.312 AISC Value (kips) 204 77.19 0.20 0.772 125.1 G. 85 . single angles. HSS sections.3 G.2 130 126 28. and shear in the weak direction of symmetric shapes.137 129.2 G.04 Table 18. Comparison Example G.

Figure 19. Each of these is using the ASD design parameters and is built with the exact specifications from the example problems.1 – Model View 86 .Verification Problem 19 Problem Statement This model is a collection of members that verifies the AISC 360-10 specification for design members for combined forces from the AISC Design Examples 14th edition.

876 AISC Value 0.4: Nodes were added along the length of the member in this example so that Plittle delta affects would be considered. Example H.3 H. Example H. the results are within a reasonable difference from the AISC hand calculation.931 0.10 0. Some notes about specific problems: Example H.2 was omitted.Validation Method In this example we are checking combined forces and torsion of the designed members.11 0.1 above. so example H.982 Table 19.2: RISA does not consider section H2 of the AISC 360-10 specification.4 RISA UC Max Value 0. Comparison Example H.4 uses the B1 amplifier to accomplish this.874 % Difference 0.1 H.983 0. 87 .1 – Comparison Conclusion As seen in Table 19.23 0.930 0.

Verification Problem 20 Problem Statement This model will be used to verify the design values for aluminum compressive members (columns).1 – Model View 88 . Figure 20.

Member M1 ADM Example 9 % Difference 59.76 65. 12.8 8. These examples were taken from Part VIII of the ADM.0 0.40 0.2 60.32 35. examples 9.Member M3 ADM Example 12 % Difference 61. and 14.54** Slenderness Upper Limit S2 65.23 Compressive Strength Pnc/Ω (k) 5.46 Compressive Strength Pnc/Ω (k) 66.0 0.85 16.14 Table 20. Comparison For this model: Slenderness S RISA Model .5 61.40 4.5 * Slenderness Lower Limit S1 Slenderness Lower Limit S1 Slenderness Lower Limit S1 Slenderness Lower Limit S1 Slenderness Upper Limit S2 65.Member M4 ADM Example 14 % Difference 8. 89 .0 3.45 Slenderness Upper Limit S2 65.Member M2 ADM Example 11 % Difference 52.45 Slenderness Upper Limit S2 62.1 above.7 66.70 * Compressive Strength Pnc/Ω (k) 35.5 0.7 66. the results are within a reasonable difference from the hand calculations with the few exceptions noted below.45** Compressive Strength Pnc/Ω (k) 65.19 Slenderness S RISA Model .00 Slenderness S RISA Model .80 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.1 – Slenderness and Strength Comparisons As seen in Table 20.9 53. 11.Validation Method The program results will be compared to the design value published in the 2010 Aluminum Design Manual by the Aluminum Association.06 Slenderness S RISA Model .7 66.17 5.8 28.

** The design example is rounding off by quite a bit in example 14 which is why the % difference is so high.3.3.1.2. Please see the hand calculations below for further verification of how RISA calculates these values. However.* Per section E. it looks like the example is only taking the kL/r value per section E. Please see the hand calculations below for an exact verification of how RISA calculates these values.3.3 of the Design Manual. RISA is taking the largest kL/r value per sections E. Hand Calculations 90 .1 & E.

91

92

Verification Problem 21

Problem Statement

This model will be used to verify the design values for aluminum bending members (beams).

Figure 21.1 – Model View

93

94 .39 2.00 Slenderness Upper Limit S2 36 36 0.2 0.25 2. These examples were taken from Part VIII of the ADM.Validation Method The program results will be compared to the design value published in the 2010 Aluminum Design Manual by the Aluminum Association.6 19.1 above. 23.99 205.39* 0.25 0. Note: For example no.70* 0.00 Slenderness S 15 15 0.Member M1 ADM Example 18 % Difference 204.1 – Slenderness and Strength Comparisons As seen in Table 21. examples 18.00 Bending Strength about the Strong Axis Mnz/Ω (k-in) RISA Model . the results are within a reasonable difference from the hand calculations.Member M2 ADM Example 19 % Difference 2.00 Bending Strength about the Weak Axis Mny/Ω (k-in) RISA Model .00 Table 21.35 Governing Moment Force M (k-in) 165 165 0.00 Slenderness Upper Limit S2 23 23 0.6 0. 19.2 10. comparisons were only made to the channel shape without stiffeners.Member M3 ADM Example 23 % Difference 3.84 3.78 Governing Moment Force M (k-in) 2. Comparison For this model: Bending Strength about the Strong Axis Mnz/Ω (k-in) RISA Model .00 Slenderness Lower Limit S1 10.00 Slenderness S 19.81 0. and 23. *This value was obtained by multiplying the Tensile Rupture allowable stress value from the example by the section modulus.

- Steel Grades and Thumb Rules
- 20120209 Civil Advanced Webinar Presentation
- Think Before You Talk
- Ubc Eq Etabs
- Stability
- Seismic Analysis of Lattice Towers
- Planwin RCDC Article Latest
- Minor project
- Part3 T05 PowerPad Calculation Wizard Tutorial
- Rules of Thumb
- 081223_Check List ETABS
- final presentation1
- Tutorial_How to Use SAP to Analyze Trusses
- Part3 T03 MasterPort Getting Started Tutorial
- UBC 97 Summary
- Robot Book
- sap Truss
- English Reading 2
- Tutorial Scia Optimizer
- One Last Final Last Report
- Structure WATER TANK 6
- 43108360 Longman Pair Work 1
- Watertank design
- Seismic design
- Essential English
- Part2 G01 MasterFrame FlatSlab Construction
- Truss Design Using Staad
- sap2000e
- Preliminary Design Rules of Thumb
- Sap 2000

- Portal Frame
- Corrosion-Understanding the Basics Front Page
- Analysis and Design of a Simple Surge Tank
- ri value for moment frames.pdf
- wind model
- C25024 Properties
- Sample Hydro Power
- ASCE Steel Penstock Front Page Only
- SOBREPENA001
- Hydraulic Structures Front Page
- C25024 properties.pdf
- Commentary Chapter 10
- Construction Joint
- Capture
- DL ratio
- Frontpage
- asce page 5.pdf
- CADAM 001
- Capture 01
- drskop prnnt
- Capture1.pdf
- SpColumn Diagram 2
- commentary reference.pdf
- Commentary Reference
- Weir Profile
- asce page 5
- 011q
- Forwork Capture 01
- asce 12
- UCDC-RFI-NPI-004 (2).pdf

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulRead Free for 30 Days

Cancel anytime.

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading