This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Rapid Interactive Structural Analysis – 3 Dimensional
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
just read in the appropriate data file and have at it. 1 . we don’t automatically assume SAPIV is correct. such as the Berkeley SAPIV program. In this verification package we present a representative sample of these test problems for your review. Verification Problem 2.r3d for problem 1. The data for each of these verification problems is provided. we have created RISA-2D model files (. When you install RISA-3D these data files are copied into the C:\RISA\Examples directory. The files are Verification Problem 1.0. those results are correct. These test problems should not necessarily be used as design examples.r3d for problem 2. Verification Version This document contains problems that have been verified in RISA-3D version 11. If discrepancies occur between the RISA-3D and the SAPIV results during testing. 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. By “well established” we mean programs that have been in general use for many years. The original SAPIV program is still the basis for several commercial programs currently on the market (but not RISA3D). etc. There are instances where SAPIV results have been proven to be incorrect. The input for these test problems was formulated to test RISA-3D’s performance. not necessarily to show how certain structures should be modeled. this document can also be used to verify RISA-2D.0.r2d files) for each two-dimensional verification problem and have included them in the C:\RISA\Examples folder of your RISA-2D installation.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. Additional testing and hand calculations are used to verify which solution (if either) is correct. The likelihood that both programs will give the same wrong answers is considered extremely remote. RISA-2D Verification Due to the similarities in the two 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. Therefore. If you want to run any of these problems yourself.1 and RISA-2D version 11. The RISA-3D solutions for each of these problems are compared to either hand calculations or solutions from other well established programs.
7 on page 171 of Structural Analysis and Design by Ketter. Validation Method The model was created in RISA-3D using W10x17 steel shapes pinned at both ends.Truss Model This problem provides a comparison of the stiffness method used in RISA-3D with the joint equilibrium method used in the text. For this solution “Q” is taken as 10 kN and “a” is taken as 2 meters (standard metric units).1. The text lists “Q” as the load magnitude and “a” as the panel width. The joint equilibrium method may be used to solve statically determinate structures only. Figure 1. and Prawel.Verification Problem 1 Problem Statement This problem is a typical truss model (please see Figure 1. This particular problem is presented as example 3. while the stiffness method can solve wither determinate or indeterminate models. Lee. 2 . thus they behave as truss elements.1 below). the axial force results calculated by RISA-3D are then compared with axial force results presented in the text. The end supports were traditional pin and roller constraints. After solution. The members are pinned at both ends.
00 M17 -23.590 0.750 0.00 M13 5.00 M7 11.180 0. 3 .590 5. opposite of RISA-3D’s sign convention.180 11.750 -23.1 – Force Comparison As seen above.00 Table 1. Therefore the signs of the RISA results have been adjusted to match. Note: The text lists tension as positive and compression as negative.Comparison Axial Force Comparison (All Forces in kN) Member RISA-3D Text % Difference M1 39.131 39. the results match exactly.131 0.
44964 radians 4 .000 ksi A = 10 in2 I = 10. This problem tests the numerical accuracy of RISA-3D. Figure 2.1).Verification Problem 2 Problem Statement This model is simply a cantilever with a vertical load applied at the end.1).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. modeled using a series of 2499 general section beams. The equations are: Displacement: Rotation: For this model. each 1 ft in length (see Figure 2.000 in4 J = 1 in4 Therefore the theoretical solution values are: Δ = -8989.2 inches θ = -0. Any significant precision errors would show up dramatically in a model like this. the following values were used: P = -1 K L = 2499’ (29988”) E = 100.
44964 0.28 -8989. 5 .Comparison Cantilever Solution Comparison (Standard Skyline Solver) Value RISA-3D Theoretical % Difference Displacement (in) -8989.29 -8989.009 Cantilever Solution Comparison (Sparse Accelerated Solver) Value RISA-3D Theoretical % Difference Displacement (in) -8989.2 0.2 0.4496 -0.001 Rotation (rad) -0.4496 -0.001 Rotation (rad) -0.44964 0.1 – Results Comparison Conclusion As seen above.009 Table 2. the results match exactly or have negligible difference.
and moments in various load combinations. the self weight capability will also be tested by calculating a set of distributed loads equivalent to the member’s self weight. SAPIV has been used widely in various forms for well over 20 years.1). In some cases.Verification Problem 3 Problem Statement This model is a small 3D frame with oblique members (see Figure 3. The members in this model are loaded with full distributed loads. point loads.1). joint 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. 6 . For example. partial length distributed loads. The purpose of this model is to test RISA-3D’s handling of member loads. Figure 3. the loads are used to test RISA-3D against itself. The solution for these applied loads is compared to the RISA-3D automatic self weight calculation. Many commercial programs currently on the market can be traced back to the original SAPIV program.
013 0.878 * 8 Axial (k) 8.606 18.Shear (k) -7.359 -17.1 – Force Comparison % Difference 0.067 0. 7 .151 -10.Comparison Member M1 M1 M9 M9 M9 M10 M10 M11 M11 M11 M12 M12 Member Force Comparison: RISA-3D vs. so compare Load Case 7 results to those of Load Case 8. Conclusion As can be seen above.690 5 My (k-ft) 2.407 0.150 6 My (k-ft) 7.350 5 Mz (k-ft) -10.610 6 Mz (k-ft) -31.880 3.530 2 Mz (k-ft) 18.799 -7.056 0. the results match very closely.021 0.056 0.066 0. Any slight variations in the results can be attributed to round off differences.450 6 Z.535 7.460 2.883 * 3 Axial (k) -17.800 4 My (k-ft) 4.010 0.480 5 Y-Shear (k) 3.052 0.690 -10.035 0.000 *These results are those in which RISA-3D tested against itself.700 1 Mz (k-ft) -10. Load Case 8 is the automatic self weight calculation.880 Table 3.477 4. Load Case 7 is the self weight defined as applied loads.000 0. SAPIV Load Combination Force RISA-3D SAPIV 7 Axial (k) 8.711 -31.
The model is a five member cantilever with a spring in the local x direction at the free end (see Fig.000 MPa = 300° = 0. but for thermal loading. Thermal loads cause structural behavior somewhat different from other loads.1).000012 cm/cm°C = 500 kN/cm = 10 meters 8 . Conversely. but not all.1 – Thermal Model Validation Method The model is validated by the use of hand calculations (see Table 4. displacements induce stress. Figure 4.1). The theoretically exact solution may be calculated for comparison with the RISA-3D result. 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. 4. This is realistic in that members generally would have only partial resistance to thermal effects. of the thermal expansion. a free end cantilever that undergoes a thermal loading would expand without resistance and thus no stress. displacements cause stress to be relieved. a fixed-fixed member that undergoes the same thermal loading would see a stress increase with no displacements. For example.Verification Problem 4 Problem Statement This model is used to test the thermal force calculations in RISA-3D. This model uses a spring to provide partial resistance to the thermal load. For gravity loads. As the model is loaded thermally the spring resist some.
Think of it as the spring force pushing the member end back this resisted expansion distance. the following is true: In other words.482 741.1 – Results Comparison Conslusion As can be seen above.482 741. therefore: So. the results match exactly. This leads to the equation for the actual displacement: The force in the member is: ( So for the given property values. 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.18 Table 4.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. using these formulations. ∆Actual = 1.482 cm Force = 741.” Now we’ll say “P” is the force in the spring.20 RISA-3D 1. 9 .
two story space frame.1 and 5. Figure 5. and Tube members (see Fig. 5. Stiffness Reduction per the Direct Analysis Method has been turned off for this example.1).2).1 – Model Sketch Validation Method Following are the hand calculations for various members for various load combinations. At least one member of each type (WF. Note the use of the inactive code “Exclude” to isolate only those members to be checked. 10 . Tee. Channel.Verification Problem 5 Problem Statement This verification model is a two bay. and Tube) is validated. These hand calculation values are used to validate the results given by RISA-3D (see Tables 5. Both ASD and LRFD codes will be checked. The steel codes used are the AISC 360-10 (14th Edition) ASD and AISC 360-10 (14th Edition) LRFD. The model is comprised of WF. Tee. This problem is used to verify the stress and steel code check calculations in RISA-3D. Channel.
Load Combination 1: 11 .ASD Hand Calculations Member M10.
Load Combination 2: 13 .Member M1.
Member M14. Load Combination 3: 15 .
Load Combination 2: 17 .Member M25.
Load Combination 4: 19 .Member M20.
Member M16. Load Combination 6: 22 .
000 0. 25 .435 0.021 1.209 4 0.972 0.840 4. Any slight differences can be attributed to round off error or torsional effects.1 – ASD Comparisons % Difference 0.235 1.972 3 4.063 0.162 Conclusion As can be seen in the chart above.447 0.ASD Results Comparison Member M10 M1 M14 M25 M20 M16 ASD Unity Check Comparisons Load Combination RISA-3D Hand Calculations 1 0.447 6 1.212 0.233 Table 5.063 2 0.000 0.841 2 0. the results match almost exactly.000 0.
Load Combination 10: 26 .LRFD Hand Calculations Member M10.
Load Combination 11: 28 .Member M1.
Load Combination 12: 30 .Member M14.
Load Combination 11: 32 .Member M25.
Member M20. Load Combination 13: 34 .
Member M16, Load Combination 15:
163 0. 39 . the results match almost exactly.LRFD Comparisons % Difference 1.026 1.000 0.388 Table 5.2.913 3.374 0.782 12 3.172 13 0.058 0.LRFD Results Comparison Member M10 M1 M14 M25 M20 M16 LRFD Unity Check Comparisons Load Combination RISA-3D Hand Calculations 10 0.914 11 0.783 0.174 0.390 1.374 15 1.144 Conclusion As can be seen in the chart above.057 11 0. Any slight differences can be attributed to round off error or torsion effects.128 0.724 0.
1 – Model Sketch 40 . Uniform loads and self weight are applied.Verification Problem 6 Problem Statement This problem is a spiral staircase model solved using both RISA-3D and GTStrudl.1). modeled as beams (see Figure 6. SAPIV and GTStrudl were both originally developed as mainframe programs using the FORTRAN language. Figure 6. and GTStrudl were independently developed and thus can be validated against one another. The structure is a series of short concrete steps. while RISA-3D has been developed as a microcomputer application using the C language. SAPIV. The primary use of this problem is to validate RISA-3D against an accepted program other than SAPIV. RISA-3D.
94 Z-Shear (k) -14.14 Table 6.88 -14. GTStrudl Force RISA-3D Result GTStrudl Result Axial (k) 20. 41 .73 -29.00 0. If the member forces match.19 My (k-ft) -29. Comparison Member M1 M5 M7 M10 M15 M18 Force Comparison: RISA-3D vs.14 2. the results match exactly.Validation Method The member forces calculated by RISA-3D are compared with the GTStrudl member forces (see Table 6.00 0.00 0.19 -0.88 Torque (k-ft) -0.62 20.00 0.00 0.73 Mz (k-ft) 2. it is reasonable to assume the joint displacements also match since the member forces are derived from the joint displacements.1).1 – Force Comparison % Difference 0.94 8.62 Y-Shear (k) 8.00 Conclusion As seen above.
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. modeled as a series of 50 individual beam elements (see Figure 7. Robert D. Figure 7. This means each frequency calculated by the Eigensolver should be duplicated (once for each bending axis). The equation presented by Blevins for the transverse frequencies is: ( ) √ The equation presented by Blevins for the longitudinal frequencies is: 42 .1). The first ten frequencies for a simply supported beam.000.1). we ask for 19 frequencies to be calculated.000 in4 & Izz = 20. Blevins (see Table 7. The beam is also modeled with nearly identical stiffness properties for its y-y and z-z bending axes (Iyy = 20. to get the first ten separate frequencies. So.1 in4).Verification Problem 7 Problem Statement This problem is designed to test the dynamic solution.
292 16. 2.000 23.017 52.019 0.000 10.699 52.10783 slugs/in µ = 0.000 in4 m = 0. 3 .158 31.790 10.643 2.520 0.170 41.( Where: Г = i*π m = mass per unit µ = mass density ) √ i = frequency number (i = 1.000 0.003 0. . it appears only once.000 0. Blevins Frequency No.168 41.692 0.019 16.000 2.010 52. the results match almost exactly. Conclusion As can been seen above.573 5.) For our model: E = 30.003 31.292 16.082 23.520 41.789 10.000 ksi I = 20.643 2.010 *Note: Frequency No.085 23.00074885 slugs/in3 Comparison Frequency Comparison: RISA-3D vs.573 0. 9 is the first longitudinal frequency. .292 0.000 0.005 41.101 Table 7. it is not duplicated.106 RISA-3D % RISA-3D y-y Axis Values (Hz) Difference z-z Axis Values (Hz) 0.017 5.101 0.017 0.573 5.643 0.789 0.000 0.082 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Blevins Value (Hz) 0.158 0.168 0.1 – Frequency Comparison % Difference 0.158 31.005 0.000 0. 43 .521 41.
” The problem also gives a verification of a rectangular beam member for torsion. Three different loadings applied at the free ends of the cantilevers are considered.1). an in-plane. the first modeled using a mesh of finite elements.1). Figure 8. The model is of two cantilever beams. and the second modeled using a rectangular beam (see Figure 8. membrane action and “twist. and a torsional twisting moment. vertical membrane load.Verification Problem 8 Problem Statement This problem is used to test plate/shell elements for bending. These are an out-of-plane bending load. These results will also be checked against theoretical hand calculations. Following are these calculations: 44 .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.
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 .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 = 108.000 in4 Therefore.
434 rad Table 8.403 rad 0.1 – Deflection Comparison Conclusion As can be seen above.038 in 180.825 in 183. the results match very closely.725 in 180.052 in 183.434 rad 0.899 in Torsion (X Rot.Comparison Free End Deflection Comparison: Plates vs.) 0. 46 .038 in Membrane (Y) 180. Beams Loading Plates/Shells Beam Theory Bending (X) 179.
The model will be analyzed in all three global directions using the CQC modal combination method with 5% damping. The 1994 UBC design spectra for soil type S1 will be the response spectra used to obtain the spectral results. 0. The reactions at the fixed end and the displacements at the top triangle tip will check the RSA and the SRSS combination feature.1).4). and 0.1-9.Verification Problem 9 Problem Statement This problem is used to test the Dynamic Analysis and the Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) features in RISA-3D. 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. The mass used for the dynamic solution consists of concentrated loads to all the free joints. mass participation factors. Multipliers were applied to the S1 spectra as follows: 1.3 for the SZ. 47 . Self weight was not included in the model solution. The comparison of the frequencies and the mass participation will be to check the dynamic solution and RSA. The model for this problem is essentially a flagpole with asymmetric triangular projections at five elevations (see Fig. 9.5 for the SY. This is desirable because it will highlight any errors in the SRSS spatial combination. The three separate results will also be combined as an absolute sum and compared to the results of the SRSS reactions. A model with no modal coupling will give the same spatially combined spectral results using the SRSS rule or an absolute sum. These spectral results will be added using the SRSS spatial combination option and then compared to the results of the same model in SAP2000.0 for the SX. the reaction at the free end. The asymmetric projections of the “flagpole” will ensure that there is a large amount of modal coupling between the lateral modes. The frequencies. Figure 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 182.52 in4.
96 9.01 0.14 0.96 0.61 26.53 12.01 0.11 0.27 5.95 9.87 0.30 0.60 16.29 5.36 2.48 0.01 81.94 14.81 52.03 1.48 0.11 72.81 33.49 1.45 0.29 5.05 0.39 7.94 0.01 0.22 0.31 1.35 0.92 -99.12 9.94 28.25 0.12 0.35 0.19 0.11 80.11 79.37 0.10 1.05 1.64 0.04 1.55 0.32 34.01 0.98 28.55 0.01 0.01 0.94 93. the frequencies and mass participation factors match almost exactly for all modes.46 0.54 0.17 98.37 0.46 0.41 1.03 8.88 1.18 0.07 0.59 0.14 0.56 0.27 2.48 25.12 10.89 0.47 22.76 0.73 2.25 0.07 0.46 14.77 1.14 18.85 1.77 1.08 0.10 0.64 0.04 52.86 Table 9.41 29.18 0.16 49.99 16.03 6.70 0.05 20.18 0.47 0.12 10.04 1.82 0.99 34.36 2.49 18.44 47.44 16.06 0.12 0. (Hz) SX SY SZ 0.02 3.93 0.96 0.06 16.94 4.63 0.73 15.59 16.01 0.95 4.17 0. 48 .02 1.06 1. (Hz) SX SY SZ Freq.94 1.14 0.03 0.05 0.99 25.21 0.93 93.73 1.67 0.06 0.02 0.67 0.12 0.17 0.56 0.61 26.89 0.07 0.44 47.18 0.02 3.46 0.93 0.10 -99.03 1.16 98.06 1.55 0.02 0.78 0.20 0.18 0.92 66.15 49.76 0.51 16.01 0.37 14.01 0.61 0.12 12.03 7.83 0.13 0.08 10.31 0.31 0.87 3.14 18.75 0.44 29.83 0.78 20.84 1.01 66.33 36.90 1.91 6.07 0.69 15.34 0.78 22.00 33.01 1.96 0.94 0.85 0.41 1.1 – 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.01 73.10 1.92 1.03 9.05 1.94 1.08 10.05 1.12 0.53 15.39 8.93 0.51 16.29 0.31 1.49 18.56 15.89 3.91 5.10 75.26 14.37 0.50 1.Comparison Frequencies and Mass Participation Factors by Mode RISA-3D Results SAP2000 Results Mass Participation (%) Mass Participation (%) Freq.31 0.11 0.44 16.80 0.04 36.
the reactions at the fixed end are also almost identical.05 SAP2000 N78 29.00 1.00 Table 9. This is included in order to compare the results to those of the SRSS spatial combination. SY.75 0.44 1.79 16.86 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.85 0.00 Table 9.60 289. As can be seen.36 15.80 59.34 0.17 8.SY.08 46.62 497.94 28. 49 .09 0.14 41.09 0.30 502.18 0. the reactions are quite a bit larger than those from the SRSS combination calculation.42 30.13 0.52 30.00 0.05 35.24 1.06 1. 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 29.42 Table 9.90 -0.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 55.34 0.4 – 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.3 – Tip Deflections These reactions were obtained from the SRSS combination of all three spectral results (SX.82 251.and SZ). and SZ). As shown above.88 N3 55.98 540.75 28.18 0.05 % Difference -1. As shown above.82 254.97 8.2 – Spectral Reactions MZ (k-ft) 41.00 0. SY.50 0. 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. the deflections at the tip of the top level are almost exactly the same. Absolute Sum Spatial Combination of the SX.
Verification Problem 10 Problem Statement This problem tests the AF&PA NDS-12 ASD code check. The model is loaded with combinations of Dead Load. Several different situations commonly encountered in wood design are shown here.1. Figure 10.1) is made up of several different shapes. 50 . and Lateral (Wind) Load. The member stresses (axial. The two bay portal frame model (see Fig. and shear) will also be calculated as part of the verification. All code check calculations and wood properties are from the AF&PA NDS-12 including the Supplement (see Table 10. such as columns. beams.1). Live Load. with one bay braced in the X-direction. 10. and combined beam/column members. bending. and grades of lumber. species.Model Sketch Validation Method Following are the hand calculations for various members for various load combinations. A different CD (Load Duration) factor is used for each load combination.
Member M1. Load Combo 3: (DL +LL+Wind) 51 .
Member M2. Load Combo 2: (DL +LL) 53 .
6. (fc/Fc’)2 ).9-3). 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.*Note: For some members the limitations in section 3. 54 . This is because in the Compression-Bending Interaction equation (Eqn. if the bending goes to zero. 3.3 control over any of the equations. the equation will automatically square the compression portion.
Member M3. Load Combo 3: (DL +LL+Wind) 55 .
Member M5. Load Combo 1: (DL Only) 57 .
Member M6. Load Combo 3: (DL +LL+Wind) 59 .
the equation will automatically square the compression portion. (fc/Fc’)2 ). lowering it from what we know to be the actual capacity ( fc/Fc’ vs.9-3). This section allows us to use the compression portion without squaring it to know the true capacity of the compression-only member. This is because in the Compression-Bending Interaction equation (Eqn.6.3 control over any of the equations. 60 .*Note: For some members the limitations in section 3. if the bending goes to zero. 3.
429 0.30 0.Comparison NDS 2012 Wood Bending Check Comparisons Member M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 Load Combo 3 2 3 1 3 RISA-3D 0.333 0.332 0.046 2.03 0.494 % Difference 0. The cause for any slight differences can be attributed to numerical round off.00 0.429 0.00 0.254 3. 61 . the results match very closely.1 – Bending Unity Check Comparison Conclusion As seen in the chart above.494 Hand Calc 0.00 Table 10.254 3.047 2.
Selected joint deflections.1). Since each tapered WF member is modeled internally as a 14 piecewise prismatic “member.Model Sketch of Frames Validation Method The frame analyzed with tapered WF sections will be compared to a similar frame.1. The ASD code checks on the tapered WF sections (for member properties see Table 11. 62 . and member section forces will be compared (see Tables 11.Verification Problem 11 Problem Statement This problem is used to test the tapered WF sections. A typical single bay with a sloped roof (see Fig.3).” the results should match very closely. reactions. Steel Code and the AISC Design Guide #25: Frame Design Using Web-Tapered Members. which is modeled with 14 piecewise prismatic sections for each tapered WF member in the original frame (see Fig. Gravity self weight will also be applied. Figure 11.4) will be compared to hand calculations using the ASD 14th Ed. 11. and member point loads.1) will be analyzed using tapered WF sections for the columns and beams.1-11. Loading will consist of vertical member projected loads. 11. lateral member distributed loads.
As seen above.781 17.659 -10.781 -14. or k.533 17.091 MZ (k-ft) 0 41. and top right corner. respectively.916 M32 108.002 0.972 M19 -30.972 M47 99.779 M60 -14.859 Y (k) 18.533 M5 -15. the results match almost exactly.501 M60 -99.628 M32 -30.002 0.1 – Joint Deflections The joint deflections were checked at the top left corner.Comparison Comparison of Joint Deflections – Load Combination 1 Tapered WF Frame Node N2 N3 N4 Direction X Y X Deflection (in) -0.091 M33 Table 11.533 -15.78 M46 17.631 18.877 -3. As is seen in the chart above. Comparison of Base Reactions – Load Combination 1 Tapered WF Frame Node N1 N5 X (k) 5.749 Node N6 N10 Equivalent "Piecewise" Frame X (k) 5.859 Y (k) 18. 63 . and at the peak.97 -30.3 – Member Forces 5 1 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 1 Mz x y Mz Mz Mz Mz y Mz x 108.97 99.290 Table 11.659 -10. 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 108.499 -99. 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. the results match exactly. at the corner joints.Member Cut (k. the results match almost exactly.290 Equivalent "Piecewise" Frame Node N7 N8 N9 Direction X Y X Deflection (in) -0.877 -3. peak.750 Table 11.533 17.2 – Base Reactions The reactions were checked at the two base nodes.091 The section forces were checked at the base of the columns. As can be seen in the chart above.629 M18 18.631 -30.914 108.091 MZ (k-ft) 0 41.
4 – Section Properties AISC 14th ASD Code Check for M2.25 Flange Width (in) 6 6 Flange Thickness (in) 0. Load Combination 2 (Per AISC Design Guide 25): 64 .25 0.375 Table 11.375 0.Tapered Section Properties Tapered WF Properties Taper Start Taper End Total Depth (in) 7 14 Web Thickness (in) 0.
Conclusion As seen above. 66 . the results match the RISA-3D result within a reasonable amount of error.
2. These methods are based on satisfying the new P-Delta design requirements found in current design codes. This model tests the first.1) by using several different methods both in RISA-3D and by hand.3) 67 .Floor Gravity Load – Roof Frame Tributary Width Story Height = = = = = Varies by level (see Figure 12. The beams and columns were entered as the given wide flange sections shown in Figure 12. These values were then compared to one another in order to examine the effect of P-Delta on the lateral displacement of frames.2) 120 psf 100 psf 30 ft Varies by level (see Figure 12.1 – P-Delta Concept A model was built per the description given in the example.order lateral displacements (see Figure 12. The applied loads were entered as those given in Figure 12. The lateral displacements of each level were calculated using several different methods. The hand verification of this problem is similar to that given in The Seismic Design Handbook by Farzad Naeim(Example 7-1). first by those presented in the example and then in RISA-3D. Lateral Loads Gravity Load.3. P-Delta Displacements Figure 12.Verification Problem 12 Problem Description This problem represents a 10 story moment resistant steel frame.and second. A model was built per the description given in the text.
2.Moment Frame Elevation with Applied Loads Shown 68 .Figure 12.
Figure 12.Moment Frame Elevation with Member Sizes and Dimensions Shown 69 .3 .
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) below shows the minimal difference between the SDH Methods.Comparison of Deflections from each SDH Method 70 . Figure 12. the Non-Iterative P-delta Method. The second method.Validation Method SDH Methods The Seismic Design Handbook utilizes two methods for analyzing the second order P-delta effects. 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.2 for a comparison of these deflections versus those of the RISA-3D P-Delta feature. The first is an iterative process where an analytical model is first used to compute the first order displacements from the applied loads. 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. below. Note: Because the example calculation does not account for axial shortening of the columns. See Table 12. These displacements are then re-applied to the model as secondary shears giving the user a modified set of displacements. This process is repeated until a reasonable convergence of data produces the final lateral displacement.3 .
203 The program results match within a reasonable round off error. But because RISA-3D second order analysis is based entirely on nodal deflections.204 0.08 18.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 8.175 0.6468 1.5504 4.57 0.97 0.3534 7.5622 4.5394 5.05 23.2 .6706 8.841 Table 12. TheRISA-3D (with P-∆ & P-δ) values in Table 12.70 6 14.22 6.4 below for a comparison of these effects on the solution.08 0. the first order lateral displacements are used to find Ѳ.6853 8.85 1 2.1– SDH Deflection Comparison 0. Non-Iterative Method Amplified Shears Level Applied Story Shear (k) Stability Index (θ) Amplified Shear (k) 10 30. Please see Figure 12.45 0.202 0.5689 2.32 4.09 16. the effect of P-δ is not directly accounted for.35 Table 12. The hand calculation method used to verify the program results is the Non-Iterative Method from the Seismic Design Handbook.11 14.212 0.6856 1.12 8 19.94 0.145 7.689 0. see Table 12.34 5 12.06 20.5291 5.83 0.5166 6.71 0.13 11.Direct Hand Method Ѳ Values and Amplified Shears 71 .32 2 5.17 9.8393 0. The amplified shear values are then found by multiplying the first order lateral displacements by 1/(1-Ѳ).84 7 17.20 0.03 4 10.3 are obtained using 2 intermediate nodes on each column. with more nodes.1 below. In this method. the user must place additional nodes along the column length to account for the P-δ effects. the Stability Index.6412 2.199 0.5715 3.02 30. the more accurate the solution. P-∆ effects are accounted for whenever the user requests it in the Load Combinations spreadsheet.1308 8.55 3 7.5614 3. This can be done with any number of additional nodes.211 0. RISA-3D Methods In RISA-3D.89 9 21. Therefore.192 0.170 0.22 0.34 0.3668 6.182 0.
8581 0.3766 6.277 0.6526 1.1299 8.133 0.6853 8.6468 2.356 7.5587 4. Figure 12. 72 .6699 2.118 0.6686 8.579 3.5754 2.3668 7.8438 Table 12.182 0.141 0.219 0.689 1.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 8.3 – Non-Iterative Method Deflection Comparison % Increase for P-δ 0.7131 1.4 .4) below shows the minimal difference between the RISA Methods.5547 5.5843 4.524 6.5715 4.6956 8.332 Conclusion The program results match the textbook example within a reasonable round off error.124 0.RISA-3D Comparison The graph (Figure 12.5291 6.5504 5.6937 0.5689 3.841 0.1551 7.164 0.149 0.145 8.5383 5.5891 3.
Model Views 73 . A 0.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.1. 13. using both global and projected directions. Here we test distribution of member area loads for the Projected Area Only option. Some of the beams are rotated about their local x-axis as noted below.1ksf area load is applied to the frame in the Z direction.1 below). Figure 13.
66 10.1 0.00 15.096 cos( ) 𝜌 𝜌 Table 13. Projected Width (in) 14.117 0.131 0.1 – Global Direction Hand Calculations d (in) 14 14 14 Z Direction Projected Loads bf φ ρ Tot.135 0.] bf = total section width [in.Validation Method Envelope dimensions of the projected sections are used to calculate equivalent uniform member distributed loads.00 ωZ (klf) 0.1 Tot.] dprojected = projected section depth [in. Projected Width (in) (deg.151 0.] d = total section depth [in.] φ = local axis rotation angle [deg.1 0.00 ωZ (klf) 0.2 – Projected Direction Hand Calculations 74 .] 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. 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.) 30 30 30 φ (deg.) 0 60 90 ρ (ksf) 0.66 10.083 Member M1 M2 M3 Shape W14X68 W14X68 W14X68 Table 13.00 15.1 0.1 14.1 0.) (ksf) (in) 10 10 10 0 60 90 0.
000 Table 13. ωZ Global Z (k/ft) Member M1 M2 M3 Theoretical 0.131 0. 0. 0. the results match exactly.135 0.000 0.3 – Load Calculation Comparison Conclusion As seen in Table 13.000 0.083 Projected Z (k/ft) Theoretical RISA-3D 0.000 0.151 0.Comparison Equivalent Uniform Member Distributed Loads.117 0.000 0.096 RISA-3D 0.096 %Diff.131 0. 75 .135 0.117 0.083 %Diff.000 0.151 0.3 above.
1 – Model View 76 . 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.
per our hand calculation.1 – Load Calculation Comparison Conclusion As seen in Table 14. the results are within a reasonable difference from the hand calculations.00 Table 14. Comparison For this model: Beam Deflection Comparison Element Solids Beam Node RISA-3D Bending Deflection (in) % Difference N1115 -1.372 0.80 N2137 -1.Validation Method The deflections at the tip of each cantilever are compared to the values obtained by hand calculations. . Deflection at the tip of a cantilever beam is calculated as follows: Where. P = 10 kips L = 10 ft = 120 in E = 3644 ksi (Conc4NW material) I = 1152 in4 Therefore.1 above. 77 .361 0.
Each of these is using the ASD design parameters and uses parameters from the individual problems.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 . Figure 15.
79 . therefore it does not check tensile rupture limit states.2 L4X4X1/2 80. the results are within a reasonable difference from the AISC hand calculations.09 D.85 175 0.500 203.8 0. RISA does not know specific bolt hole locations.23 D. Comparison For this model: RISA AISC Value Value % Example Shape (kips) (kips) Difference D.13 D.1 W8X21 184.Validation Method In this example we are simply checking the tensile yield limit state.677 162 0.228 170 0.3 WT6X20 174.431 184 0.1 – Tensile Yield Capacity comparison Comparison As seen in Table 15.20 Table 15.1 above.6 2L4X4X1/2 (1/2" Gap) 161.23 D.5 HSS6x0.05 D.461 203 0.4 HSS6X4X3/8 170.838 80.
Each of these is using the ASD design parameters and uses parameters from the individual problems. Figure 16.1 – Model View 80 .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.
51 344 HSS12X8X3/16 94.1 – Compression Capacity comparison Example E.0 WT7X15 24.80 626 LL4X3.44** 94.43 147 Built-Up Unequal Flange 184.9 E.Validation Method In this example we are checking the compression capacity of members for all AISC limit states.64 0.47 85. By taking K in RISA-3D = 1.1-43 of the AISC 360-10 specification.61) =1.6 10X Pipe 145. Comparison This section is the tabular comparison of the RISA Program answers and the summary from the detailed validation results.5X3/8 (3/4" Gap) 84.6 E.15 0. **Note that the program is using f = Fy per the user note on page 16.07 618 WF (Slender Web) 336.2 E. the results are within a reasonable difference from the AISC hand calculations.5.8 WT7X34 85.568. However.87 0.3 E.50 42.08 0.07 85. The example defines K = 1.7 E.81 *Note that the K for this shape was set to 1.30 24.17 1.61’. 81 . the example yields a KL = 8.08 0.568 we can approach the hand calculated value.71 338 WF (Slender Flange) 206.89 594 W14X90 617.5 E.03 0.11 E.4A E.15 0.12 % Difference 0. In each of these cases we are listing the “Calculation Solution”. RISA AISC Value Value Shape (kips) (kips) W14X132 593.63 1.1 above.8 E.1B E. Conclusion As seen in Table 16.21 208 W14X82 (Col B-C)* 625.43 0. but a conservative 9’ is used.4 HSS12X10X3/8 344.0 LL3X5X1/4 (3/4" Gap) 43.10 E.5*(9/8.02 0. In many cases there is a “Table Solution” and a “Calculation Solution”.1A E.38 0.50 186 Table 16.
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. Each of these is using the ASD design parameters and is built with the exact specifications from the example problems.1 – Model View 82 .
2-2A F.257 87. the results are within a reasonable difference from the AISC hand calculations.1 – Flexural Capacity Comparison Example F.38 0.08 0.2-1A F.268 191.282 0.3A F.00 0.00 0.35 Mnz/Ω 0.12 F.17 0.13 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 251.088 4.8 % Difference 0.2-1A F.4 F. 83 .996 201.8A F.04 1.04 Table 17.11 0.00 Live Load Deflection 2 1.148 264.206 91.2 – Member Deflection Comparison Conclusion As seen in the tables above.13 0.851 33.39 0.863 54.10 0.664 2.44 37.4 4.644 AISC Value 0.9A F.9 28.35 0.8A Deflection (in) Live Load Deflection Total Deflection LC 2 1 RISA Value 0.3A F.08 0.8 54.283 Table 17.331 81. Comparison Example F.7A F.87 33.10 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.22 0.66 % Difference 0.664 2.60 0.23 0.43 37.1-1A F.683 AISC Value 252 201 191 91.05 0.1-3A F.6 F.1-2A F.5 F.775 334.1 4.13 0.142 4.95 28.3 87 265 334 81.
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 18.1 – Model View 84 . Each of these is using the ASD design parameters and is built with the exact specifications from the example problems.
3 % Difference 0.168 57.6 G.1 above.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. HSS sections.5 G.82 77.605 16.11 0.312 AISC Value (kips) 204 77.18 0.1 – Shear Comparison Conclusion As seen in Table 18.137 129. 85 .756 28.8 16.1 G.2 57.19 0.20 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) 203.772 125.2 130 126 28.09 0. single angles. and shear in the weak direction of symmetric shapes. Comparison Example G.7 Shape W24x62 C15x33.25 0. the results are within a reasonable round-off difference from the AISC hand calculation.3 G.4 G.2 G.04 Table 18.
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. Figure 19.1 – Model View 86 . Each of these is using the ASD design parameters and is built with the exact specifications from the example problems.
4: Nodes were added along the length of the member in this example so that Plittle delta affects would be considered.1 above.982 Table 19.1 H.11 0.930 0.983 0. so example H.10 0.876 AISC Value 0.2: RISA does not consider section H2 of the AISC 360-10 specification. Example H.2 was omitted.4 RISA UC Max Value 0.23 0.1 – Comparison Conclusion As seen in Table 19. 87 . Comparison Example H.3 H. Example H.931 0.Validation Method In this example we are checking combined forces and torsion of the designed members.4 uses the B1 amplifier to accomplish this. the results are within a reasonable difference from the AISC hand calculation. Some notes about specific problems: Example H.874 % Difference 0.
Verification Problem 20 Problem Statement This model will be used to verify the design values for aluminum compressive members (columns). Figure 20.1 – Model View 88 .
12.40 4.76 65.8 8.06 Slenderness S RISA Model .7 66.5 61.45 Slenderness Upper Limit S2 62. 11.0 0.17 5.23 Compressive Strength Pnc/Ω (k) 5.45 Slenderness Upper Limit S2 65.5 * Slenderness Lower Limit S1 Slenderness Lower Limit S1 Slenderness Lower Limit S1 Slenderness Lower Limit S1 Slenderness Upper Limit S2 65.80 0.40 0. These examples were taken from Part VIII of the ADM. 89 . examples 9. Comparison For this model: Slenderness S RISA Model .19 Slenderness S RISA Model .45** Compressive Strength Pnc/Ω (k) 65.0 3.9 53.70 * Compressive Strength Pnc/Ω (k) 35.2 60. and 14.Member M1 ADM Example 9 % Difference 59.0 0.7 66.46 Compressive Strength Pnc/Ω (k) 66.0 0.5 0.8 28.85 16.7 1.Member M4 ADM Example 14 % Difference 8.54** Slenderness Upper Limit S2 65.1 above. the results are within a reasonable difference from the hand calculations with the few exceptions noted below.32 35.Member M2 ADM Example 11 % Difference 52.14 Table 20.Member M3 ADM Example 12 % Difference 61.Validation Method The program results will be compared to the design value published in the 2010 Aluminum Design Manual by the Aluminum Association.00 Slenderness S RISA Model .1 – Slenderness and Strength Comparisons As seen in Table 20.0 0.7 66.
3. RISA is taking the largest kL/r value per sections E.3.* Per section E.1.3. Hand Calculations 90 .2. However.3 of the Design Manual. Please see the hand calculations below for further verification of how RISA calculates these values. ** The design example is rounding off by quite a bit in example 14 which is why the % difference is so high. it looks like the example is only taking the kL/r value per section E.1 & E. Please see the hand calculations below for an exact verification of how RISA calculates these values.
Verification Problem 21
This model will be used to verify the design values for aluminum bending members (beams).
Figure 21.1 – Model View
2 10.39* 0.00 Slenderness S 15 15 0. examples 18.6 19. Comparison For this model: Bending Strength about the Strong Axis Mnz/Ω (k-in) RISA Model .25 2.Member M1 ADM Example 18 % Difference 204.6 0.00 Table 21.00 Slenderness S 19.39 2.78 Governing Moment Force M (k-in) 2. *This value was obtained by multiplying the Tensile Rupture allowable stress value from the example by the section modulus.00 Slenderness Upper Limit S2 36 36 0.00 Bending Strength about the Weak Axis Mny/Ω (k-in) RISA Model .35 Governing Moment Force M (k-in) 165 165 0.1 above.Member M3 ADM Example 23 % Difference 3. Note: For example no.2 0.00 Slenderness Lower Limit S1 10.81 0.00 Bending Strength about the Strong Axis Mnz/Ω (k-in) RISA Model . 94 .Member M2 ADM Example 19 % Difference 2. These examples were taken from Part VIII of the ADM. comparisons were only made to the channel shape without stiffeners.99 205.25 0. 19. and 23.70* 0.1 – Slenderness and Strength Comparisons As seen in Table 21. 23.84 3. the results are within a reasonable difference from the hand calculations.Validation Method The program results will be compared to the design value published in the 2010 Aluminum Design Manual by the Aluminum Association.00 Slenderness Upper Limit S2 23 23 0.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.