69 views

Uploaded by Angel Simon Diaz

aaa

- Chapter 05
- Lab2 Free Vibration
- Slab Bridge
- ME3281 Lab Session 2014
- A Novel Methodology Using Simplified Approaches for Identification of Cracks in Beam
- Vibration Analysis of Asymmetric Shear Wall- Frame
- Machine Foundation PPT
- analytical solution_dynamic response
- A Method for Calculating the Electromagnetic Noise of a Motor-driven Thin Blade Fan
- Chapter 5 Rotor Modeling
- Block Foundation
- Active Mass Damper to Control Vibration in a Footbridge
- Using Seismic Isolation Elements to Protect Cylindrical Steel Liquid Storage Tanks From Destructive Forces of Earthquakes[#97382]-83487
- design of offshore structure
- 1002 Full Paper
- New Twist on Interpreting Vibration Analysis Faults
- 02. Beam_02
- Cezar Doca - Quasi Static Bending of Beams
- Lecture133342
- Ml 063050178

You are on page 1of 621

For ETABS 2015

Proudly developed in the United States of America

December 2014

Copyright

Copyright Computers & Structures, Inc., 1978-2014

All rights reserved.

The CSI Logo and ETABSare registered trademarks of Computers & Structures, Inc.

The computer program ETABS and all associated documentation are proprietary and

copyrighted products. Worldwide rights of ownership rest with Computers & Structures, Inc.

Unlicensed use of these programs or reproduction of documentation in any form, without

prior written authorization from Computers & Structures, Inc., is explicitly prohibited.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or

stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior explicit written permission of the

publisher.

Further information and copies of this documentation may be obtained from:

Computers & Structures, Inc.

www.csiamerica.com

info@csiamerica.com (for general information)

support@csiamerica.com (for technical support)

DISCLAIMER

CONSIDERABLE TIME, EFFORT AND EXPENSE HAVE GONE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT

AND DOCUMENTATION OF THIS SOFTWARE. HOWEVER, THE USER ACCEPTS AND

UNDERSTANDS THAT NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY THE

DEVELOPERS OR THE DISTRIBUTORS ON THE ACCURACY OR THE RELIABILITY OF

THIS PRODUCT.

THIS PRODUCT IS A PRACTICAL AND POWERFUL TOOL FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN.

HOWEVER, THE USER MUST EXPLICITLY UNDERSTAND THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF

THE SOFTWARE MODELING, ANALYSIS, AND DESIGN ALGORITHMS AND

COMPENSATE FOR THE ASPECTS THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED.

QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER MUST

INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE RESULTS AND TAKE PROFESSIONAL

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INFORMATION THAT IS USED.

Contents

Introduction

Methodology

Conclusions

Problems

Analysis Problems

1

Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads, Static Gravity Load Analysis

Analysis

Spectrum Analysis

Analysis

Response Spectrum Analysis

10

Analysis

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

11

History Analysis

12

13

14

Analysis

15

Design Examples

Steel Frame

AISC 360-05 Example 001

Compression

Compression

Compression & Biaxial Bending

Compression & Bending

Bending

Bending

ii

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

Bending

Bending

Bending

Compression & Bending

Compression & Bending

Compression & Biaxial Bending

Compression

Compression & Bending

Compression & Bending

Compression & Bending

Concrete Frame

ACI 318-08 Example 001

ACI 318-11 Example 001

Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing

iii

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

Rectangular Stress Distribution

Rectangular Stress Distribution

iv

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

Shear Wall

ACI 318-08 WALL-001

AS 360-09 WALL-001

AS 360-09 WALL-002

BS 8110-97 WALL-001

BS 8110-97 WALL-002

EC 2-2004 WALL-001

EC 2-2004 WALL-002

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

NZS-3103-2006 WALL-001

NZS-3103-2006 WALL-002

Singapore CP65-99-001

Singapore CP65-99-002

Composite Beam

AISC 360-05 Example 001

Simply Supported Composite Beam

Composite Beam

Design of Simply Supported Composite Beam

Composite Column

AISC 360-10 Example 001

vi

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

References

vii

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

Revision

Number

Date

19 Apr 2013

Description

Initial release of ETABS, Version 13.0.0

9 July 2013

11 Apr 2014

been corrected

Minor improvements have been made to some of the

examples, and some example file names have been changed

for consistency. The design results produced and reported by

ETABS are correct. The reported results are not changed

except where the model has been changed.

Three new examples have been added for steel frame design.

Analysis model EX8.EDB - The response-spectrum function

damping was incorrect and did not match the responsespectrum load case damping, hence the results produced did

not match the documented value. After correction, the example

produces the expected and documented results. No change was

made to the Verification manual.

Analysis Example 03 - The name of code IBC2000 was

changed to ASCE 7-02, as actually used in ETABS (IBC2000

was used in v9.7.4). In addition, the Verification manual was

corrected for the actual values produced by ETABS. These

values have not changed since v13.0.0. The documented

values were for ETABS v9.7.4 and some changed in v13.0.0

due to the use of a different solver. The change has no

engineering significance.

Analysis Example 06 and Example 07 - The Verification

manual was corrected for the actual values produced by

ETABS. These values have not changed since v13.0.0. The

documented values were for ETABS v9.7.4 and some changed

in v13.0.0 due to the use of a different solver. The change has

no engineering significance.

Analysis Example 15 - The Verification manual was corrected

for the actual values produced by ETABS. These values have

not changed since v13.0.0. The documented values were for

ETABS v9.7.4 and some changed in v13.0.0 due to the use of

a different solver, and due to the difference in how wall

elements are connected to beams. The change due to the solver

has no engineering significance. The change for wall elements

was an enhancement.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

Revision

Number

Date

3 Nov 2014

Description

Concrete Frame Design EN 2-2004 Example 001, Concrete

Frame Design NTC 2008 Example 002 - The values produced

by ETABS 2014 were updated in the Verification manual for a

change in v13.1.3 under Incident 59154 (Ticket 23901) where

the coefficients Alpha_CC and Alpha_LCC were not taken

into account in certain cases.

Concrete Frame Design AS 3600-2009 Example 002, Shear

Wall Design AS 3600-2009 WALL-002 - The values produced

by ETABS were updated in the Verification manual for a

change in v13.1.4 under Incident 59973 where the phi factor

was incorrectly computed.

Analysis Example 14 Minor changes have been made to the

results as the result of an enhancement made under Incident

67283 to improve the convergence behavior of nonlinear static

and nonlinear direct-integration time history analysis.

Composite Beam Design AISC-360-05 Example 001 was

updated to reflect the fact that, under Incident 59912 it is now

possible to specify that the shear stud strength is to be

computed assuming the weak stud position. A typo in the

version number of the referenced Design Guide example was

corrected. A slight error in the hand-calculation for the partial

composite action Mn was corrected, resulting in perfect

agreement with the value produced by ETABS.

Composite Beam Design AISC-360-10 Example 001 was

updated to reflect the fact that, under Incident 59912 it is

possible to specify that the shear stud strength is to be

computed assuming the weak stud position. The handcalculation for the partial composite action Mn was revised

to account for a lower percentage of composite action caused

by an increase in the number of shear studs per deck rib in

places, and a corresponding decrease in shear stud strength.

Composite Beam Design BS-5950-90 Example 001- The

hand-calculations in the Verification manual were updated to

reflect the actual section area of a UKB457x191x167, which

differs from the value in the reference example, and to reflect

that the maximum number of shear studs that can be placed on

the beam is 78 studs and not the 80 the reference example calls

for. Also the value of the live load deflection produced by

ETABS was updated for a change in v13.2.0 under Incident

ii

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

Revision

Number

Date

Description

56782.

Composite Beam Design CSA-S16-09 Example 001. The

values produced by ETABS for the shear stud capacity were

updated in the Verification manual for a change in v13.2.0

under Incident 71303. This change in turn affects the value of

the partial composite moment capacity Mc but has no

engineering significance. A typo affecting the value of precomposite deflection in the Results Comparison table was

corrected.

Composite Beam Design EC-4-2004 Example 001. The handcalculation of the construction moment capacity, Ma,pl,Rd was

updated to reflect a more accurate value of the section Wpl and

typos affecting the pre-composite deflection and beam camber

were corrected. None of the values computed by ETABS

changed.

Initial release of ETABS 2015, Version 15.0.0

7 Jan 2015

been updated due to changes previously reported under

Incident #56569.

Shear Wall Design example AS 3600-09 Wall-001 has been

updated due to changes previously reported under Incident

#56113.

Shear Wall Design example CSA A23.3-04 Example 001 has

been updated due to changes previously reported under

Incident #71922.

Concrete Frame Design example CSA A23.3-04 Example 002

has been updated due to changes previously reported under

Incident #71922.

New steel frame design examples have been added for CSA

S16-14 and KBC 2009.

New concrete frame design examples have been added for

ACI 318-14, CSA A23.3-14, and KBC 2009.

New shear wall design examples have been added for ACI

318-14, CSA A23.3-14, and KBC 2009.

iii

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

INTRODUCTION

This manual provides example problems used to test various features and capabilities of

the ETABS program. Users should supplement these examples as necessary for verifying

their particular application of the software.

METHODOLOGY

A series of test problems, or examples, designed to test the various elements and analysis

features of the program were created. For each example, this manual contains a short

description of the problem; a list of significant ETABS options tested; and a comparison of

key results with theoretical results or results from other computer programs. The

comparison of the ETABS results with results obtained from independent sources is

provided in tabular form as part of each example.

To validate and verify ETABS results, the test problems were run on a PC platform that

was a Dell machine with a Pentium III processor and 512 MB of RAM operating on a

Windows XP operating system.

Acceptance Criteria

The comparison of the ETABS validation and verification example results with

independent results is typically characterized in one of the following three ways.

Exact: There is no difference between the ETABS results and the independent results

within the larger of the accuracy of the typical ETABS output and the accuracy of the

independent result.

Acceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference between the

ETABS results and the independent results does not exceed five percent (5%). For internal

force and stress values, the difference between the ETABS results and the independent

results does not exceed ten percent (10%). For experimental values, the difference between

the ETABS results and the independent results does not exceed twenty five percent (25%).

Unacceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference between the

ETABS results and the independent results exceeds five percent (5%). For internal force

and stress values, the difference between the ETABS results and the independent results

exceeds ten percent (10%). For experimental values, the difference between the ETABS

results and the independent results exceeds twenty five percent (25%).

The percentage difference between results is typically calculated using the following

formula:

ETABS 2013 Result

=

Percent Difference 100

1

Independent Result

INTRODUCTION

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

Summary of Examples

The example problems addressed plane frame, three-dimensional, and wall structures as

well as shear wall and floor objects. The analyses completed included dynamic response

spectrum, eigenvalue, nonlinear time history, and static gravity and lateral load.

Other program features tested include treatment of automatic generation of seismic and

wind loads, automatic story mass calculation, biaxial friction pendulum and biaxial

hysteretic elements, brace and column members with no bending stiffness, column pinned

end connections, multiple diaphragms, non rigid joint offsets on beams and columns, panel

zones, point assignments, rigid joint offsets, section properties automatically recovered

from the database, uniaxial damper element, uniaxial gap elements, vertical beam span

loading and user specified lateral loads and section properties.

Analysis: Of the fifteen Analysis problems, eight showed exact agreement while the

remaining seven showed acceptable agreement between ETABS and the cited independent

sources.

Design Steel Frame: All 30 Steel Frame Design problems showed acceptable agreement

between ETABS and the cited independent sources.

Design Concrete Frame: All 34 Concrete Frame Design problems showed acceptable

agreement between ETABS and the cited independent sources.

Design Shear Wall: All 32 of the Shear Wall Design problems showed acceptable

agreement between ETABS and the cited independent sources.

Design Composite Beam: The 6 Composite Beam Design problems showed acceptable

agreement between ETABS and the cited independent sources.

Design Composite Column: The 3 Composite Column Design problems showed

acceptable agreement between ETABS and cited independent sources.

Summary of Examples

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

CONCLUSIONS

ETABS is the latest release of the ETABS series of computer programs. Since

development, ETABS has been used widely for structural analysis. The ongoing usage of

the program coupled with continuing program upgrades are strong indicators that most

program bugs have been identified and corrected.

Additionally, the verification process conducted as described in this document

demonstrates that the program features tested are operating reliably and with accuracy

consistent with current computer technology capabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

EXAMPLE 1

Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads - Static Gravity Load Analysis

Problem Description

This is a one-story, two-dimensional frame subjected to vertical static loading.

To be able to compare ETABS results with theoretical results using prismatic members and

elementary beam theory, rigid joint offsets on columns and beams are not modeled, and axial

and shear deformations are neglected. Thus, the automatic property generation feature of

ETABS is not used; instead, the axial area and moment of inertia for each member are explicitly input.

The frame is a three-column line, two-bay system. Kip-inch-second units are used. The

modulus of elasticity is 3000 ksi. All columns are 12"x24"; all beams are 12"x30".

The frame geometry and loading patterns are shown in Figure 1-1.

50k

Eq.

100k

Eq.

100k

Eq.

100k

Eq.

50k

Case 1

Case 2

10k/ft

Pinned

Connection

10

Origin

Figure 1-1 Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads

Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads - Static Gravity Load Analysis

1-1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Vertical beam span loading

No rigid joint offsets on beams and columns

Column pinned end connections

Results Comparison

The theoretical results for bending moments and shear forces on beams B1 and B2 are easily

obtained from tabulated values for propped cantilevers (American Institute of Steel Construction 1989). These values for beam B1 are compared with ETABS results in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Comparison of Results for Beam B1 Case 1

Load Case I

(Concentrated Load)

Quantity

Bending Moments

Shear Forces

Location

End I

Point

point

point

End J

End I

Point

point

point

End J

ETABS

0.00

1,687.50

3,375.00

-337.50

-4,050.00

-31.25

-31.25

68.75

68.75

68.75

Theoretical

0.00

1,687.50

3,375.00

-337.50

-4,050.00

-31.25

-31.25

68.75

68.75

68.75

Load Case II

(Uniformly Distributed Load)

Quantity

Bending Moments

Location

ETABS

Theoretical

End I

Point

point

point

0.00

2,430.00

2,430.00

0.00

0.00

2,430.00

2,430.00

0.00

Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads - Static Gravity Load Analysis

1-2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Load Case II

(Uniformly Distributed Load)

Quantity

Shear Forces

Location

End J

End I

Point

point

point

End J

ETABS

-4,860.00

-67.50

-22.50

22.50

67.50

112.50

Theoretical

-4,860.00

-67.50

-22.50

22.50

67.50

112.50

Computer File

The input data file for this example is EX1.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS

installation.

Conclusion

The comparison of results shows an exact match between the ETABS results and the theoretical data.

Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads - Static Gravity Load Analysis

1-3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

EXAMPLE 2

Three-Story Plane Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis

Problem Description

This is a three-story plane frame subjected to the El Centro 1940 seismic response spectra, N-S

component, 5 percent damping.

Assuming the beams to be rigid and a rigid offset at the column top ends of 24 inches (i.e.,

equal to the depth of the beams), and neglecting both shear deformations and axial deformations, the story lateral stiffness for this example can be calculated (Przemieniecki 1968).

The example then reduces to a three-spring, three-mass system with equal stiffnesses and

masses. This can be analyzed using any exact method (Paz 1985) to obtain the three natural

periods and mass normalized mode shapes of the system.

The spectral accelerations at the three natural periods can then be linearly interpolated from

the response spectrum used.

The spectral accelerations can in turn be used with the mode shapes and story mass information to obtain the modal responses (Paz 1985). The modal responses for story displacements and column moments can then be combined using the complete quadratic combination

procedure (Wilson, et al. 1981).

The frame is modeled as a two-column line, single bay system. Kip-inch-second units are

used. Other parameters associated with the structure are as follows:

All columns are W14X90

All beams are infinitely rigid and 24" deep

Modulus of elasticity

= 29500 ksi

= 0.4 kip-sec2/in

The column is modeled to have infinite axial area, so that axial deformation is neglected. Also, zero column shear area is input to trigger the ETABS option of neglecting shear deformations. These deformations are neglected to be consistent with the hand-calculated model

with which the results are compared.

The frame geometry is shown in Figure 2-1.

2-1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Rigid joint offsets on beams and columns automatically calculated

Dynamic response spectrum analysis

Results Comparison

The three theoretical natural periods and mass normalized mode shapes are compared in Table 2-1 with ETABS results.

Table 2-1 Comparison of Results for Periods and Mode Shapes

Mode

Period, secs.

Mode Shape

Roof Level

0.4414

0.1575

ETABS

Theoretical

1.165

1.165

nd

0.934

0.934

st

1 Level

0.519

0.519

Roof Level

0.934

0.934

2nd Level

-0.519

-0.519

1st Level

-1.165

-1.165

2 Level

2-2

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Mode

Period, secs.

Mode Shape

Roof Level

0.1090

ETABS

Theoretical

0.519

0.519

2 Level

-1.165

-1.165

1st Level

0.934

0.934

nd

The story displacements and column moments thus obtained are compared in Table 2-2 with

ETABS results. The results are identical.

Table 2-2 Comparison of Displacements and Column Moments

Quantity

Displacement at

Roof

2nd

1st

Moment, Column C1, at Base

ETABS

Theoretical

2.139

1.716

0.955

11,730

2.139

1.716

0.955

11,730

Computer Files

The input data file for this example is EX2.EDB. The response spectrum file is ELCN-RS1.

These files are provided as part of the ETABS installation.

Conclusion

The result comparison shows an exact match between the ETABS results and the theoretical

data.

2-3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

EXAMPLE 3

Three-Story Plane Frame, Code-Specified Static Lateral Load Analysis

Problem Description

The frame is modeled as a two-column line, single bay system. This three-story plane frame

is subjected to the following three code-specified lateral load cases:

UBC 1997 specified seismic loads (International Conference of Building Officials 1997)

ASCE 7-02 specified seismic loads (American Society of Civil Engineers 2002)

UBC 1997 specified wind loads (International Conference of Building Officials 1997)

Kip-inch-second units are used. Other parameters associated with the structure are as follows:

All columns are W14X90

All beams are infinitely rigid and 24" deep

Modulus of elasticity

= 29500 ksi

Poisson's ratio

= 0.3

Typical story mass

= 0.4 kip-sec2/in

The frame geometry is shown in Figure 3-1.

3-1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

For the UBC97 seismic load analysis, the code parameters associated with the analysis are as

follows:

UBC Seismic zone factor, Z

UBC Soil Profile Type

UBC Importance factor, I

UBC Overstrength Factor

UBC coefficient Ct

UBC Seismic Source Type

Distance to Source

= 0.40

= SC

= 1.25

= 8.5

= 0.035

=B

= 15 km

For the ASCE 7-02 seismic load analysis, the code parameters associated with the analysis

are as follows:

Site Class

Response Accel, Ss

Response Accel, S1

Response Modification, R

Coefficient Ct

Seismic Group

=C

=1

= 0.4

=8

= 0.035

=I

For the UBC97 wind load analysis, the exposure and code parameters associated with the

analysis are as follows:

Width of structure supported by frame

UBC Basic wind speed

UBC Exposure type

UBC Importance factor, I

UBC Windward coefficient, Cq

UBC Leeward coefficient, Cq

= 20 ft

= 100 mph

=B

=1

= 0.8

= 0.5

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Section properties automatically recovered from AISC database

Automatic generation of UBC 1997 seismic loads

Automatic generation of ASCE 7-02 seismic loads

3-2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Results Comparison

For each of the static lateral load analyses, the story shears can be computed using the

formulae given in the applicable references. For the seismic loads, the fundamental period

computed by ETABS can be used in the formulae. From ETABS results, this fundamental

period is 0.5204 second. (Note the difference between the calculated fundamental period for

this example and Example 2, which neglects shear and axial deformations.)

Hand-calculated story shears are compared with story shears produced by the ETABS

program in Table 3-1 for UBC seismic loads, Table 3-2 for ASCE 7-02 seismic loads and

Table 3-3 for UBC wind loads.

Table 3-1 Comparison of Results for Story Shears - UBC 1997 Seismic

ETABS (kips)

Theoretical (kips)

Roof

34.07

34.09

2nd

56.78

56.82

st

68.13

68.19

Level

Table 3-2 Comparison of Results for Story Shears - ASCE 7-02 Seismic

ETABS (kips)

Theoretical (kips)

Roof

19.37

19.38

nd

32.23

32.25

38.61

38.64

Level

1st

Table 3-3 Comparison of Results for Story Shears - UBC 1997 Wind

ETABS (kips)

Theoretical (kips)

Roof

3.30

3.30

nd

9.49

9.49

st

15.21

15.21

Level

Computer File

The input data file for this example is EX3.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS

installation.

3-3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Conclusion

The results comparison shows an exact match between the ETABS results and the theoretical

data.

3-4

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

EXAMPLE 4

Single-Story, Three-Dimensional Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis

Problem Description

This is a one-story, four-bay, three-dimensional frame. The frame is subjected to the El Centro 1940 N-S component seismic response spectrum, for 5 percent damping, in two orthogonal directions. The columns are modeled to neglect shear and axial deformations to be consistent with the assumptions of hand calculations with which the results are compared.

The example is a three-degree-of-freedom system. From the individual column lateral

stiffnesses, assuming rigid beams and rigid offsets at column top ends equal to 36 inches (i.e.,

the depth of the beams) and neglecting both shear deformations and column axial deformations, the structural stiffness matrix can be assembled (Przemieniecki 1968).

The frame geometry is shown in Figure 4-1.

The structure is modeled as a single frame with four column lines and four bays. Kip-inchsecond units are used. Other parameters associated with the structure are as follows:

4 -1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Columns on lines C3 and C4: 18" x 18"

All beams infinitely rigid and 36" deep

Modulus of elasticity = 3000 ksi

Story weight

= 150 psf

Three-dimensional frame analysis

Automatic story mass calculation

Dynamic response spectrum analysis

Results Comparison

From the stiffness and mass matrices of the system, the three natural periods and mass normalized mode shapes of the system can be obtained (Paz 1985). These are compared in Table

4-1 with ETABS results.

Table 4-1 Comparison of Results for Periods and Mode Shapes

Mode

1

Quantity

ETABS

Theoretical

Period, sec.

Mode Shape

X-translation

Y-translation

Z-rotation

Period, sec.

Mode Shape

X-translation

Y-translation

Z-rotation

Period,sec.

Mode Shape

X-translation

Y-translation

Z-rotation

0.1389

0.1389

-1.6244

0.0000

0.0032

0.1254

-1.6244

0.000

0.0032

0.1254

0.000

1.6918

0.000

0.0702

0.000

1.6918

0.000

0.070

0.4728

0.000

0.0111

0.4728

0.000

0.0111

4 -2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Computer File

The input data file for this example is EX4.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS

installation.

Conclusion

The results comparison shows an exact match between the ETABS results and the theoretical

data.

4 -3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

EXAMPLE 5

Three-Story, Three-Dimensional Braced Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum

Analysis

Problem Description

This is an L-shaped building structure with four identical braced frames. All members (columns and braces) carry only axial loads.

The structure is subject to the El Centro 1940 N-S component seismic response spectrum in

the X-direction. The structural damping is 5 percent. The structure is modeled by appropriately placing four identical planar frames. Each frame is modeled using three column lines. Kipinch-second units are used.

The modulus of elasticity is taken as 29500 ksi and the typical member axial area as 6 in2. A

story mass of 1.242 kip-sec2/in and a mass moment of inertia of 174,907.4 kip-sec2-in are

used.

The geometry of the structure and a typical frame are shown in Figure 5-1.

Three-dimensional structure analysis using planar frames

Brace (diagonal) and column members with no bending stiffness

Dynamic response spectrum analysis

Results Comparison

This example has been solved in Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and Peterson (1981). A

comparison of ETABS results for natural periods and key member forces for one frame

with these references is given in Table 5-1.

5 -1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

D4

D1

D2

D3

D1

D2

D3

D4

D1

D2

D3

D4

5 -2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

ETABS

Wilson and

Habibullah

Peterson

Period, Mode 1

0.32686

0.32689

0.32689

Period, Mode 2

0.32061

0.32064

0.32064

Axial Force

Column C1, Story 1

279.39

279.47

279.48

Axial Force

Brace D1, Story 1

194.44

194.51

194.50

Axial Force

Brace D3, Story 1

120.49

120.53

120.52

Quantity

Computer File

The input data file is EX5.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS installation.

Conclusions

The results comparison reflects acceptable agreement between the ETABS results and reference data.

5 -3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

EXAMPLE 6

Nine-Story, Ten-Bay Plane Frame - Eigenvalue Analysis

Problem Description

An eigenvalue analysis is completed.

The frame is modeled with eleven column lines and ten bays. Kip-ft-second units are used. A

modulus of elasticity of 432,000 ksf is used. A typical member axial area of 3ft2 and moment

of inertia of 1ft4 are used. A mass of 3kip-sec2/ft/ft of member length is converted to story

mass using tributary lengths and used for the analysis.

This is a nine-story, ten-bay plane frame, as shown in Figure 6-1.

6 -1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Eigenvalue analysis

Results Comparison

This example is also analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and Bathe and Wilson

(1972). There are two differences between the ETABS analysis and the analyses of the

references. The models of the references assign vertical and horizontal mass degrees of

freedom to each joint in the structure. However, the ETABS model only assigns horizontal

masses and additionally, only one horizontal mass is assigned for all the joints associated

with any one floor level.

The eigenvalues obtained from ETABS are compared in Table 6-1 with results from Wilson

and Habibullah (1992) and Bathe and Wilson (1972).

Table 6-1 Comparison of Results for Eigenvalues

Quantity

ETABS

Wilson and

Habibullah

Bathe and

Wilson

0.58965

0.58954

0.58954

5.53196

5.52696

5.52695

16.5962

16.5879

16.5878

Computer File

The input data filename for this example is EX6.EDB. This file is provided as part of the

ETABS installation.

Conclusions

Considering the differences in modeling enumerated herein, the results comparison between

ETABS and the references is acceptable.

6 -2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

EXAMPLE 7

Seven-Story, Plane Frame - Gravity and Lateral Loads Analysis

Problem Description

This is a seven-story plane frame. The frame is modeled with three column lines and two

bays. Kip-inch-second units are used. Because the wide flange members used in the frame

are older sections, their properties are not available in the AISC section property database

included with the ETABS program, and the required properties therefore need to be explicitly provided in the input data.

The example frame is analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992) for gravity loads, static

lateral loads and dynamic response spectrum loads. DYNAMIC/EASE2 analyzes the example frame under static lateral loads and dynamic response spectrum and time history

loads. A comparison of key ETABS results with Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and DYNAMIC/EASE2 results is presented in Tables 7-1, 7-2, 7-3 and 7-4. Note the difference in

modal combination techniques between ETABS and Wilson and Habibullah, which uses

complete quadratic combination (CQC), and DYNAMIC/EASE2, which uses square root

of the sum of the squares combination (SRSS).

The gravity loads and the geometry of the frame are shown in Figure 7-1.

The frame is subjected to the following lateral loads:

Static lateral loads, shown in Figure 7-1

Lateral loads resulting from the El Centro 1940 N-S component seismic response spectra, 5 percent damping

Lateral loads resulting from the El Centro 1940 N-S component acceleration time history

7 -1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Vertical Loading,

typical for all

levels

All columns are W14s

All beams are W24s

Member weights are indicated

Typical story mass = 0.49 kip-sec 2/in

Figure 7-1 Seven-Story Plane Frame

7 -2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Two-dimensional frame analysis

User-specified section properties

User-specified lateral loads

Dynamic response spectrum analysis

Dynamic time history analysis

Results Comparison

The comparison of the results for all three analyses is excellent.

Table 7-1 Comparison of Results for Static Lateral Loads

ETABS

Wilson and

Habibullah

DYNAMIC/EASE2

Lateral Displacement

at Roof

1.4508

1.4508

1.4508

Axial Force

Column C1, at ground

69.99

69.99

69.99

Moment

Column C1, at ground

2324.68

2324.68

2324.68

Quantity

Mode

ETABS

Wilson and

Habibullah

DYNAMIC/EASE2

1.27321

1.27321

1.27321

0.43128

0.43128

0.43128

0.24205

0.24204

0.24204

0.16018

0.16018

0.16018

0.11899

0.11899

0.11899

0.09506

0.09506

0.09506

0.07952

0.07951

0.07951

7 -3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Wilson and

ETABS

Habibullah

DYNAMIC/EASE2

CQC

SRSS

CQC

Quantity

Combination

Combination

Combination

Lateral Displacement

at Roof

5.4314

5.4314

5.4378

Axial Force

Column C1 at ground

261.52

261.50

261.76

Moment

Column C1 at ground

9916.12

9916.11

9868.25

ETABS

Wilson and

Habibullah

5.49

5.48

285

284

263

258

9104

8740

Quantity

Computer Files

The input data file is EX7.EDB. The input history is ELCN-THU. Time history results are

obtained for the first eight seconds of the excitation. This is consistent with DYNAMIC/EASE2, with which the results are compared. These computer files are provided as part

of the ETABS installation.

Conclusions

Noting the difference in modal combination techniques between ETABS and Wilson and

Habibullah, which uses complete quadratic combination (CQC), and DYNAMIC/EASE2,

which uses square root of the sum of the squares combination (SRSS), the results of the

testing are acceptable.

7 -4

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

EXAMPLE 8

Two-Story, Three-Dimensional Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis

Problem Description

This is a two-story, three-dimensional building frame subjected to a response spectrum of

constant amplitude. The three-dimensional structure is modeled as a single frame with nine

column lines and twelve bays. Kip-foot-second units are used.

For consistency with the models documented in other computer programs with which the

ETABS results are compared (see Table 8-1), no story mass moments of inertia are assigned in the ETABS model.

The geometry of the structure is shown in Figure 8-1.

B5

B6

B10

B8

B12

B3

13'

B4

B7

B9

B1

B2

B11

13'

C8

C7

C4

Z

C1

C5

C9

C6

25'

Y

C3

C2

X

35'

GLOBAL

AND FRAME

REFERENCE POINT

25'

35'

STORY 2 CENTER OF MASS AT (38,27,26)

TYPICAL STORY MASS = 6.212 kip-sec 2 /ft

8-1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

A response spectrum with a constant value of 0.4g is used. Other parameters associated

with the structure are as follows:

Columns

4 ft2

1.25 ft4

1.25 ft4

350000 ksf

Axial area

Minor moment of inertia

Major moment of inertia

Modulus of elasticity

Beams

5 ft2

1.67 ft4

2.61 ft4

500000 ksf

Three-dimensional frame analysis

User-specified section properties

Dynamic response spectrum analysis

Comparison of Results

This example is also analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and Peterson (1981). A

comparison of the key ETABS results with Wilson and Habibullah (Reference 1) and Peterson (Reference 2) is shown in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1 Comparison of Results

Quantity

ETABS

Reference 1

Reference 2

Period, Mode 1

0.22708

0.22706

0.22706

Period, Mode 2

0.21565

0.21563

0.21563

Period, Mode 3

0.07335

0.07335

0.07335

Period, Mode 4

0.07201

0.07201

0.07201

X-Displacement

Center of mass, 2nd Story

0.0201

0.0201

0.0201

Computer File

The input data file is EX8.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS installation.

Conclusion

The results comparison shows acceptable agreement between ETABS and the references.

8-2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

EXAMPLE 9

Two-Story, 3D Unsymmetrical Building Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum

Analysis

Problem Description

This is a two-story three-dimensional unsymmetrical building frame. The structure is subjected to a seismic response spectrum along two horizontal axes that are at a 30-degree angle to the building axes. The seismic excitation is identical to the one used in Wilson and

Habibullah (1992).

The geometry of the structure is shown in Figure 9-1. The three-dimensional structure is

modeled as a single frame with six column lines and five bays. Kip-foot-second units are

used. Typical columns are 18"x18" and beams are 12"x24". The modulus of elasticity is

taken as 432,000 ksf.

9 -1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Three-dimensional frame analysis

Dynamic response spectrum analysis

Results Comparison

The structure is also analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992). Key ETABS results are

compared in Table 9-1.

Table 9-1 Comparison of Results

ETABS

Wilson and

Habibullah

Period, Mode 1

0.4146

0.4146

Period, Mode 2

0.3753

0.3753

Period, Mode 3

0.2436

0.2436

Period, Mode 4

0.1148

0.1148

Period, Mode 5

0.1103

0.1103

Period, Mode 6

0.0729

0.0729

Seismic at 30 to X

0.1062

0.1062

Seismic at 120 to X

0.0617

0.0617

Quantity

X- Displacement

Center of Mass at 2nd Story for:

Computer File

The input data file is EX9.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS installation.

Conclusions

The results comparison shows exact agreement between ETABS and the reference material.

9 -2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

EXAMPLE 10

Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis

Problem Description

This is a single bay three-story plane frame subjected to ground motion, as shown in Figure

10-1. The El Centro 1940 (N-S) record is used in the nonlinear time history analysis. Three

elements that absorb energy through hysteresis (ADAS elements as described in Scholl 1993

and Tsai, et al. 1993) are used to connect the chevron braces to the frame. Two models are

investigated. In the first model, the ADAS elements are intended to produce about 5% damping in the fundamental mode. In the second model, damping is increased to 25%. The manufacturer supplied the properties of the ADAS elements.

The ADAS elements are modeled in ETABS by assigning a panel zone with a nonlinear link

property to the mid-span point object where the chevrons intersect the beams at each story.

The link properties use the uniaxial hysteretic spring property (PLASTIC1) and provide

beam-brace connectivity with nonlinear behavior in the U2 (shear in the 1-2 plane) direction.

Under this arrangement, displacements are transferred between the chevrons and the frame

via the link elements undergoing shear deformation.

The frame is modeled as a two-column line, one-bay system. Kip-inch-second units are used.

The modulus of elasticity is taken as 29000 ksi. Column, beam and brace section properties

are user-defined.

A single rigid diaphragm is allocated to each story level and connects all three point objects

(two column points and one mid-span point) at each story. Because of the rigid diaphragms,

no axial force will occur in the beam members. All members are assigned a rigid zone factor

of 1.

In both models the value of post yield stiffness ratio is taken as 5% and the time increment

for output sampling is specified as 0.02 second.

Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis

10 - 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

D1

D2

D1

D2

D1

D2

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Panel zones

Point assignments

Nonlinear time history analysis

Ritz vectors

Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis

10 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Results Comparison

Sample results are compared in Table 10-1 with results from the nonlinear analysis program

DRAIN-2DX (Prakash, et al. 1993) for both 5% and 25% damping cases.

Table 10-1 Results Comparison

5% Damping

Level

ETABS

DRAIN-2DX

25% Damping

ETABS

DRAIN-2DX

3rd

4.57

4.57

2.10

1.92

2nd

3.48

3.51

1.68

1.55

1st

1.82

1.82

0.92

0.86

3rd

2

nd

1st

7.29

7.31

17.75

17.40

13.97

13.92

36.70

36.20

17.98

18.00

47.79

47.10

3rd

5.16

5.17

12.55

12.30

nd

9.88

9.84

25.95

25.60

st

12.71

12.70

33.79

33.28

Computer Files

The input data files for this example are EX10A.EDB (5% damping) and EX10B.EDB (25%

damping). The time history file is ELCN-THE. These files are provided as part of the ETABS

installation.

Conclusions

The results comparison show acceptable to exact agreement between ETABS and DRAIN2DX.

Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis

10 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Example 11

Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements - Nonlinear Time History

Analysis

Problem Description

The El Centro 1940 (N-S) record is used in the nonlinear time history analysis. Three viscous

damper elements of the type described in Hanson (1993) are used to connect the chevron

braces to the frame. Two models are investigated. In the first model, the damper elements are

intended to produce about 5% damping in the fundamental mode. In the second model, damping is increased to 25%.

The ETABS viscous damper element (DAMPER) is a uniaxial damping device with a linear

or nonlinear force-velocity relationship given by F = CV.

The damper elements are modeled in ETABS by assigning a panel zone with a nonlinear link

property to the mid-span point object where the chevrons intersect the beams at each story.

The link properties use the uniaxial damper property (DAMPER) and provide beam-brace

connectivity with nonlinear behavior in the U2 (shear in the 1-2 plane) direction. Under this

arrangement, displacements are transferred between the chevrons and the frame via the link

elements (dampers) undergoing shear deformation.

The time increment for output sampling is specified as 0.02 second.

This is a single-bay, three-story plane frame subjected to ground motion, as shown in Figure

11-1. The frame is modeled as a two-column line, one-bay system. Kip-inch-second units are

used. The modulus of elasticity is taken as 29000 ksi. Column, beam and brace section properties are user defined.

A single rigid diaphragm is allocated to each story level and connects all three point objects

(two column points and one mid-span point) at each story. Because of the rigid diaphragms,

no axial force will occur in the beam members. All members are assigned a rigid zone factor

of 1.

Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis

11 - 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Use of panel zones

Use of uniaxial damper elements

Point assignments

Nonlinear time history analysis

Ritz vectors

Results Comparison

Sample results for = 1 are compared in Table 11-1 with results from the nonlinear analysis program DRAIN-2DX (Prakash, et al. 1993) for both 5% and 25% damping cases.

Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis

11 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

5% Damping

Level

ETABS

25% Damping

DRAIN-2DX

ETABS

DRAIN-2DX

3rd

4.09

4.11

2.26

2.24

2nd

3.13

3.14

1.75

1.71

1st

1.63

1.63

0.89

0.87

3rd

6.16

5.98

14.75

14.75

nd

10.79

10.80

32.82

32.84

1st

15.15

15.02

44.90

44.97

3rd

4.36

4.23

10.43

10.43

nd

7.63

7.63

23.21

23.22

st

10.71

10.62

31.75

31.80

Computer File

The input data files for this example are EX11A.EDB (5% damping) and EX11B.EDB

(25% damping). The time history file is ELCN-THE. These files are provided as part of

the ETABS installation.

Conclusions

The comparison of results shows acceptable agreement between ETABS and DRAIN-2DX.

Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis

11 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

EXAMPLE 12

Pounding of Two Planar Frames, Nonlinear Time History Analysis

Problem Description

A two-bay, seven-story plane frame is linked to a one-bay four-story plane frame using

ETABS GAP elements. The structure experiences pounding because of ground motion.

The El Centro 1940 (N-S) record is used in the nonlinear time history analysis.

This example illustrates the use of gap elements to model pounding between buildings.

The geometry of the structure is shown in Figure 12-1.

The combined structure is modeled as a single frame with five column lines and three beam

bays. Kip-inch-second units are used. The modulus of elasticity is taken as 29500 ksi. Column and beam section properties are user defined.

Through the joint assignment option, Column lines 4 and 5 are connected to Diaphragm 2.

Column lines 1 to 3 remain connected to Diaphragm 1 by default. This arrangement physically divides the structure into two parts. The interaction is provided via the gap elements,

which are used as links spanning Column lines 3 and 4. The local axis 1 of the links is in

the global X-direction.

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Use of uniaxial gap elements

Point assignments

Nonlinear time history analysis

Use of multiple diaphragms

Results Comparison

The example frame analyzed using ETABS is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Computers

and Structures 2002) for time history loads (SAP2000 has been verified independently). A

comparison of key ETABS results with SAP2000 is presented in Table 12-1.

12 - 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

12 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Quantity

ETABS

SAP2000

5.5521

5.5521

266.89

266.88

A typical output produced by the program is shown in Figure 12-2. It shows the variations

of the displacement of Column lines 3 and 4 and the link force at Story 4. It is clearly evident that the link force is generated whenever the two column lines move in phase and their

separation is less than the specified initial opening or if they move towards each other out

of phase. For display purposes, the link forces are scaled down by a factor of 0.01.

and Link Force at Story 4

Computer Files

The input data for this example is EX12.EDB. The time history file is ELCN-THU. Both of

the files are provided as part of the ETABS installation.

12 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Conclusions

The results comparison shows essentially exact agreement between ETABS and SAP2000.

12 - 4

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

EXAMPLE 13

Base-Isolated, Two-Story, 3D Frame - Nonlinear Time History Analysis

Problem Description

This is a two-story, three-dimensional frame with base isolation. The structure is subjected

to earthquake motion in two perpendicular directions using the Loma Prieta acceleration

records.

Hysteretic base isolators of the type described in Nagarajaiah et al. (1991) are modeled using the ETABS ISOLATOR1 elements, which show biaxial hysteretic characteristics.

The structure is modeled as a single reinforced concrete frame with nine column lines and

twelve bays. The floor slab is taken to be 8 inches thick, covering all of the specified floor

bays at the base and the 1st story level. At the second story level the corner column as well

as the two edge beams are eliminated, together with the floor slab, to render this particular

level unsymmetric, as depicted in Figure 13-1.

A modulus of elasticity of 3000 ksi is used. The self-weight of concrete is taken as 150 pcf.

Kip-inch-second units are used.

The geometry of the structure is shown in Figure 13-1.

Three-dimensional frame analysis

Use of area (floor) objects

Use of biaxial hysteretic elements

Point assignments

Nonlinear time history analysis using ritz vectors

13 - 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Results Comparison

The example frame analyzed using ETABS is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Computers

and Structures 2002) for time history loads (SAP2000 has been verified independently). A

comparison of key ETABS results with SAP200 is presented in Table 13-1.

13 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Quantity

ETABS

SAP2000

3.4735

3.4736

13.56

13.55

A typical output produced by the program is shown in Figure 13-2. It shows the loaddeformation relationship in the major direction for a typical isolator member.

Computer Files

The input data file for this example is EX13.EDB. The time history files are LP-TH0 and

LP-TH90. All of these files are provided as part of the ETABS installation.

Conclusion

The results comparison shows essentially exact agreement between ETABS and SAP2000.

13 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

EXAMPLE 14

Friction Pendulum Base-Isolated 3D Frame - Nonlinear Time History Analysis

Problem Description

This is a two-story, three-dimensional frame with base isolation using friction pendulum

base isolators. The structure is subjected to earthquake motion in two perpendicular directions using the Loma Prieta acceleration records.

Friction pendulum type base isolators of the type described in Zayas and Low (1990) are

modeled using the ETABS ISOLATOR2 elements.

It is important for these isolator elements that the axial load from other loads be modeled

before starting the nonlinear analysis. This is achieved by using a factor of unity on the

dead load (self weight) on the structure in the nonlinear analysis initial conditions data.

The structure is modeled as a single reinforced concrete frame with nine column lines and

twelve bays. The floor slab is taken to be 8 inches thick, covering all of the specified floor

bays at the base and the 1st story level. At the second story level, the corner column and the

two edge beams are eliminated, together with the floor slab, to render this particular level

anti-symmetric, as depicted in Figure 14-1.

The isolator properties are defined as follows:

Stiffness in direction 1

Stiffness in directions 2 and 3

Coefficient of friction at fast speed

Coefficient of friction at slow speed

Parameter determining the variation

of the coefficient of friction with velocity

Radius of contact surface in directions 2 and 3

1E3

1E2

.04

.03

20

60

A modulus of elasticity of 3000 ksi is used. The self-weight of concrete is taken as 150 pcf.

Kip-inch-second units are used.

The geometry of the structure is shown in Figure 14-1.

14 - 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Three-dimensional frame analysis

Use of area (floor) objects

Use of biaxial friction pendulum elements

Point assignments

Nonlinear time history analysis using ritz vectors

14 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Results Comparison

The example frame analyzed using ETABS is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Computers and

Structures 2002) for time history loads (SAP2000 has been verified independently). A comparison of key ETABS results with SAP2000 is presented in Table 14-1.

Table 14-1 Comparison of Result for Time History Analysis

Quantity

ETABS

SAP2000

4.2039

4.2069

37.54

38.25

A typical output produced by the program is shown in Figure 14-2. It shows the variation of

the displacement of the second story at column line 1.

Computer Files

The input data file for this example is Example 14.EDB. The time history files are LP-TH0

and LP-TH90. All of the files are provided as part of the ETABS installation.

14 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Conclusion

The results comparison shows acceptable agreement between ETABS and SAP2000.

14 - 4

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

EXAMPLE 15

Wall Object Behavior - Static Lateral Loads Analysis

Problem Description

This example analyzes a series of wall configurations to evaluate the behavior of the

ETABS shell object with wall section assignments. All walls are subjected to a static lateral

load applied at the top of the wall.

The following walls are included:

Planar shear wall, shown in Figure 15-1

Wall supported on columns, shown in Figure 15-2

Wall-spandrel system, shown in Figure 15-3

C-shaped wall section, shown in Figure 15-4

Wall with edges thickened, shown in Figure 15-5

E-shaped wall section, shown in Figure 15-6

A modulus of elasticity of 3000 ksi and a Poisson's ratio of 0.2 are used for all walls. Kipinch-second units are used throughout. The following sections describe the models for the

different walls.

Planar Shear Wall , Example 15a

This shear wall is modeled with one panel per story. Three different wall lengths of 120",

360" and 720" are analyzed. Also, one-story and three-story walls are analyzed, together

with the six-story wall shown in Figure 15-1. A wall thickness of 12" is used.

15 - 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Wall Supported on Columns, Example 15b

This wall is modeled with two column lines. Columns are used for the first story, and the

top two stories have a single shell object with end piers, as shown in Figure 15-2. End

piers are 40" by 12" in cross section and panels are 12" thick. Columns are 40" by 20" in

cross section.

15 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

15 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

This wall is modeled with four column lines. The spandrels are modeled as beams. Two

different spandrel lengths of 60" and 240" are analyzed. Each wall is modeled with two

shell objects per story. Three-story walls are also analyzed together with the six-story wall

shown in Figure 15-3. A wall and spandrel thickness of 12" is used.

15 - 4

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

This wall is modeled with six column lines and five shell objects per story, to model the

shape of the wall. A three-story wall was also analyzed together with the six-story wall, as

shown in Figure 15-4. A wall thickness of 6" is used.

POINT OF LOAD

APPLICATION

TH

TH

TH

RD

ND

ST

ELEVATION

GLOBAL

REFERENCE

POINT

100k

X

C3

C2

C4

C5

C6

C1

80

100k

120

80

40

80

PLAN

15 - 5

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

This wall is modeled with two column lines and one shell object, with end piers, per story

as shown in Figure 15-5. A three-story wall was also analyzed together with the six-story

wall shown in Figure 15-5.

TH

TH

TH

RD

ND

ST

30

30

C1

C2

210

18

X

Global

Reference

Point

15 - 6

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

This wall is modeled with six column lines and five shell objects per story to model the

shape of the wall. A three-story wall was also analyzed together with the six-story wall, as

shown in Figure 15-6. A wall thickness of 6" is used.

POINT OF LOAD

APPLICATION

6TH

120

5 TH

120

4 TH

120

3 RD

120

2 ND

120

ST

120

BASELINE

ELEVATION

GLOBAL

REFERENCE

POINT

100k

100k C3

C1

C2

X

120

C4

C5

C6

120

120

PLAN

15 - 7

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Use

of area objects

Two-dimensional

Static

Results Comparison

All walls analyzed in this example using ETABS were also analyzed using the general

structural analysis program SAP2000 (Computers and Structure 2002), using refined meshes of the membrane/shell element of that program. The SAP2000 meshes used are shown in

Figures 15-7, 15-8, 15-9, 15-10, 15-11 and 15-12. For the SAP2000 analysis, the rigid diaphragms at the floor levels were modeled by constraining all wall nodes at the floor to have

the same lateral displacement for planar walls, or by adding rigid members in the plane of

the floor for three-dimensional walls.

15 - 8

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

15 - 9

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

The lateral displacements from the ETABS and SAP2000 analyses are compared in Tables

15-1, 15-2, 15-3, 15-4, 15-5 and 15-6 for the various walls.

Table 15-1 Results Comparison for Top Displacements (Inches), Example 15a

Number

Wall Height

Wall Length

of Stories

(inches)

(inches)

ETABS

SAP2000

6

720

120

2.3921

2.4287

360

0.0986

0.1031

720

0.0172

0.0186

3

360

120

0.3071

0.3205

360

0.0170

0.0187

720

0.0046

0.0052

1

120

120

0.0145

0.0185

360

0.0025

0.0029

720

0.0011

0.0013

Table 15-2 Results Comparison for Displacements (Inches), Example 15b

Location

ETABS

SAP2000

Story 3

0.0691

0.0671

Story 2

0.0524

0.0530

Story 1

0.0390

0.0412

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Example 15c (1-4)

Number of Stories

Beam Length (inches)

ETABS

60

0.0844

6

240

0.1456

60

0.0188

3

240

0.0313

ETABS

2

SAP2000

0.0869

0.1505

0.0200

0.0332

Application Point, Example 15d (1-2)

Number of

Load

Displacement

Stories

Direction

Direction

ETABS

SAP2000

X

X

0.8637

0.8936

6

X

Z-Rotation

0.0185

0.0191

Y

Y

1.1447

1.1882

X

X

0.1249

0.1337

3

X

Z-Rotation

0.0024

0.0025

Y

Y

0.1623

0.1733

Table 15-5 Results Comparison for Top Displacements (Inches),

Example 15e(1-2)

Number of Stories

ETABS

6

0.2822

3

0.0464

SAP2000

0.2899

0.0480

Example 15f (1-2)

Number of

Load

Displacement

Stories

Direction

Direction

ETABS

SAP2000

X

X

0.3707

0.3655

6

X

Z-Rotation

0.0042

0.0039

Y

Y

0.7295

0.7490

X

X

0.0602

0.0628

3

X

Z-Rotation

0.0005

0.0005

Y

Y

0.0993

0.1058

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Computer Files

The input data files for the planar shear walls are included as files EX15A1.EDB through

EX15A9.EDB. These and the following input data files are provided as part of the ETABS

installation.

The input data for the wall supported on columns is EX15B.EDB.

The input data files for the wall-spandrel system are 15C1.EDB through 15C4.EDB.

The input data files for the shaped wall section are included as files EX15D1.EDB and

EX15D2.EDB.

The input data for the wall with thickened edges are included as files EX15E1.EDB and

EX15E2.EDB.

The input data for the E-shaped wall section are included as files EX15F1.EDB and

EX15F2.EDB.

Conclusion

The results comparison show acceptable agreement between ETABS and SAP2000. In

general, the comparisons become better as the number of stories increases.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The design flexural strengths are checked for the beam shown below. The beam

is loaded with a uniform load of 0.45 klf (D) and 0.75 klf (L). The flexural

moment capacity is checked for three unsupported lengths in the weak direction,

Lb = 5 ft, 11.667 ft and 35 ft.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

W18X50

E = 29000 ksi

Fy = 50 ksi

Loading

w = 0.45 klf (D)

w = 0.75 klf (L)

Geometry

Span, L = 35 ft

Section Compactness Check (Bending)

Member Bending Capacities

Unsupported length factors

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are comparing with the results of Example F.1-2a from the

AISC Design Examples, Volume 13 on the application of the 2005 AISC

Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-05).

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Compact

Compact

0.00%

Cb ( Lb =5ft)

1.004

1.002

0.20%

378.750

378.750

0.00%

1.015

1.014

0.10%

307.124

306.657

0.15%

Cb ( Lb =35ft)

1.138

1.136

0.18%

b M n ( Lb =35ft) (k-ft)

94.377

94.218

0.17%

Output Parameter

b M n ( Lb =5ft) (k-ft)

Cb ( Lb =11.67ft)

b M n ( Lb =11.67ft) (k-ft)

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

Section: W18x50

bf = 7.5 in, tf = 0.57 in, d = 18 in, tw = 0.355 in

h = d 2t f = 18 2 0.57 = 16.86 in

h0 = d t f =18 0.57 =17.43 in

S33 = 88.9 in3, Z33 = 101 in3

Iy =40.1 in4, ry = 1.652 in, Cw = 3045.644 in6, J = 1.240 in4

rts

=

40.1 3045.644

= 1.98 in

88.889

I y Cw

=

S33

Other:

c = 1.0

L = 35 ft

Loadings:

wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 1.2(0.45) + 1.6(0.75) = 1.74 k/ft

wu L2

= 1.74 352/8 = 266.4375 k-ft

Mu =

8

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

bf

2t f

7.50

= 6.579

2 0.57

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

p = 0.38

ETABS

0

E

29000

= 0.38

= 9.152

Fy

50

Flange is Compact.

Localized Buckling for Web:

=

h 16.86

=

= 47.49

tw 0.355

p = 3.76

29000

E

= 3.76

= 90.553

50

Fy

Web is Compact.

Section is Compact.

Section Bending Capacity:

Critical Lengths:

E

29000

Lp =

1.76 ry

=

1.76 1.652

=

70.022 in =

5.835 ft

Fy

50

E

=

Lr 1.95rts

0.7 Fy

Lr = 1.95 1.98

0.7 Fy S33 ho

Jc

1 + 1 + 6.76

S33 ho

Jc

E

0.7 50 88.9 17.43

1 + 1 + 6.76

29000 1.240 1.0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Lr = 16.966 ft

For the lateral-torsional buckling limit state, the non-uniform moment magnification factor is

calculated using the following equation:

Cb =

2.5M max

12.5M max

Rm 3.0

+ 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C

Eqn. 1

moment.

The required moments for Eqn. 1 can be calculated as a percentage of the maximum mid-span

moment. Since the loading is uniform and the resulting moment is symmetric:

1 L

M A = MC = 1 b

4 L

M=

M

=

1.00

max

B

2

1 L

1 5

MA =

MC =

1 b =

1 =

0.995

4 L

4 35

Cb =

12.5 (1.00 )

Cb = 1.002

M

=

M

=

5050 k in

n

p

b M=

0.9 5050 /12

n

=

b M n 378.75 k ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

M=

M

=

1.00

max

B

2

1L

1 11.667

1 b =

1

0.972

MA =

MC =

=

4 L

4 35

Cb =

12.5 (1.00 )

Cb = 1.014

Lb L p

M p

M n = C b M p (M p 0.7 Fy S 33 )

L

L

p

r

11.667 5.835

=

M n 1.014 5050 ( 5050 0.7 50 88.889 )

=

4088.733 k in

16.966 5.835

b M=

0.9 4088.733 /12

n

=

b M n 306.657 k ft

M=

M

=

1.00

B

max

2

1 L

1 35

MA =

MC =

1 b =

1 =

0.750 .

4 L

4 35

Cb =

12.5 (1.00 )

(1.00 )

Cb = 1.136

Lb > Lr , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Fcr =

Cb 2 E

Lb

rts

Jc

1 + 0.078

S 33 ho

L

b

rts

1.136 2 29000

1.24 1 420

Fcr =

1 + 0.078

14.133 ksi

=

2

88.889 17.4 1.983

420

1.983

2

M n = Fcr S 33 M p

M n= 14.133 88.9= 1256.245 k in

b M=

0.9 1256.245 /12

n

=

b M n 94.218 k ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

BUILT UP WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

A demand capacity ratio is calculated for the built-up, ASTM A572 grade 50,

column shown below. An axial load of 70 kips (D) and 210 kips (L) is applied to

a simply supported column with a height of 15 ft.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Section compactness check (compression)

Warping constant calculation, Cw

Member compression capacity with slenderness reduction

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with the results from

Example E.2 AISC Design Examples, Volume 13.0 on the application of the 2005

AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-05).

Output Parameter

Compactness

cPn (kips)

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Slender

Slender

0.00%

506.1

506.1

0.00 %

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

Section: Built-Up Wide Flange

d = 17.0 in, bf = 8.00 in, tf = 1.00 in, h = 15.0 in, tw = 0.250 in.

Ignoring fillet welds:

A = 2(8.00)(1.00) + (15.0)(0.250) = 19.75 in2

2(1.0)(8.0)3 (15.0)(0.25)3

+

=85.35 in 3

Iy =

12

12

Iy

85.4

=

ry =

= 2.08 in.

A

19.8

I x = Ad 2 + I x

(0.250)(15.0)3 2(8.0)(1.0)3

+

= 1095.65 in 4

12

12

t +t

1+1

d ' =

d 1 2 =

=

17

16 in

2

2

Iy d '2 (85.35)(16.0) 2

Cw =

=

= 5462.583 in 4

4

4

bt 3 2(8.0)(1.0)3 + (15.0)(0.250)3

=

J

=

= 5.41 in 4

3

3

Member:

K = 1.0 for a pinned-pinned condition

L = 15 ft

I x = 2(8.0)(8.0) 2 +

Loadings:

Pu = 1.2(70.0) + 1.6(210) = 420 kips

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Section Compactness:

Check for slender elements using Specification Section E7

Localized Buckling for Flange:

b 4.0

=

= 4.0

t 1.0

E

29000

=

= 0.38 = 9.152

p 0.38

Fy

50

Flange is Compact.

Localized Buckling for Web:

h 15.0

=

= 60.0 ,

t 0.250

E

29000

=

= 1.49 = 35.9

r 1.49

Fy

50

Web is Slender.

Section is Slender

Member Compression Capacity:

Elastic Flexural Buckling Stress

Since the unbraced length is the same for both axes, the y-y axis will govern by

inspection.

KL y

ry

Fe =

1.0(15 12 )

= 86.6

2.08

2E

KL

2 29000

(86.6)2

= 38.18 ksi

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Note: Torsional buckling will not govern if KLy > KLz, however, the check is included

here to illustrate the calculation.

2 EC w

1

Fe =

+

GJ

2

(K z L )

Ix + Iy

2 29000 5462.4

1

= 91.8 ksi > 38.18 ksi

=

+

11200

5.41

Fe

1100 + 85.4

(180 )

Therefore, the flexural buckling limit state controls.

Fe = 38.18 ksi

Section Reduction Factors

Since the flange is not slender,

Qs = 1.0

Since the web is slender,

For equation E7-17, take f as Fcr with Q = 1.0

4.71

KLy

E

29000

=4.71

=113 >

=86.6

QFy

ry

1.0 ( 50 )

So

QFy

1.0( 50 )

0.34 E

1

b, where b = h

b

t

f

(

)

29000

0.34

29000

be = 1.92 ( 0.250 )

1

15.0in

28.9 (15.0 0.250 ) 28.9

=

be 12.5in 15.0in

be = 1.92t

E

f

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Aeff =

betw + 2b f t f =

(12.5)( 0.250 ) + 2 ( 8.0 )(1.0 ) =19.1 in 2

where Aeff is effective area based on the reduced effective width of the web, be.

Aeff

19.1

=

= 0.968

A 19.75

=

Q Q=

=

(1.00 )( 0.968

) 0.968

s Qa

=

Qa

Determine whether Specification Equation E7-2 or E7-3 applies

4.71

KLy

E

29000

= 4.71

= 115.4 >

= 86.6

QFy

ry

0.966 ( 50 )

When 4.71

E

KL

QFy

r

QFy

1.0( 50 )

Fe

38.18

Fy 0.966 0.658

=

Fcr Q 0.658

=

=

50 28.47 ksi

Pn =Fcr Ag =28.5 19.75 =562.3kips

c =0.90

c P=

Fcr Ag= 0.90 ( 562.3=) 506.1kips > 420 kips

n

c Pn =

506.1kips

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The design flexural strengths are checked for the beam shown below. The beam

is loaded with a uniform load of 0.45 klf (D) and 0.75 klf (L). The flexural

moment capacity is checked for three unsupported lengths in the weak direction,

Lb = 5 ft, 11.667 ft and 35 ft.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

W18X50

E = 29000 ksi

Fy = 50 ksi

Loading

w = 0.45 klf (D)

w = 0.75 klf (L)

Geometry

Span, L = 35 ft

Section compactness check (bending)

Member bending capacities

Unsupported length factors

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are comparing with the results of Example F.1-2a from the

AISC Design Examples, Volume 13 on the application of the 2005 AISC

Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10).

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compact

Compact

0.00%

1.004

1.002

0.20%

378.750

378.750

0.00%

1.015

1.014

0.10%

307.124

306.657

0.15%

Cb ( Lb =35ft)

1.138

1.136

0.18%

b M n ( Lb =35ft) (k-ft)

94.377

94.218

0.17%

Output Parameter

Compactness

Cb ( Lb =5ft)

b M n ( Lb =5ft) (k-ft)

Cb ( Lb =11.67ft)

b M n ( Lb =11.67ft) (k-ft)

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

Section: W18x50

bf = 7.5 in, tf = 0.57 in, d = 18 in, tw = 0.355 in

h = d 2t f = 18 2 0.57 = 16.86 in

h0 = d t f =18 0.57 =17.43 in

S33 = 88.9 in3, Z33 = 101 in3

Iy =40.1 in4, ry = 1.652 in, Cw = 3045.644 in6, J = 1.240 in4

=

rts

40.1 3045.644

= 1.98in

88.889

I y Cw

=

S33

Other:

c = 1.0

L = 35 ft

Loadings:

wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 1.2(0.45) + 1.6(0.75) = 1.74 k/ft

Mu =

wu L2

= 1.74 352/8 = 266.4375 k-ft

8

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

bf

2t f

7.50

= 6.579

2 0.57

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

p = 0.38

ETABS

0

E

29000

= 0.38

= 9.152

Fy

50

Flange is Compact.

Localized Buckling for Web:

h 16.86

=

= 47.49

tw 0.355

p = 3.76

29000

E

= 3.76

= 90.553

50

Fy

Web is Compact.

Section is Compact.

Critical Lengths:

E

29000

Lp =

1.76 ry

=

1.76 1.652

=

70.022 in =

5.835ft

Fy

50

E

=

Lr 1.95rts

0.7 Fy

Lr = 1.95 1.98

0.7 Fy S33 ho

Jc

1 + 1 + 6.76

S33 ho

Jc

E

0.7 50 88.9 17.43

1 + 1 + 6.76

29000 1.240 1.0

Lr = 16.966 ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

For the lateral-torsional buckling limit state, the non-uniform moment magnification

factor is calculated using the following equation:

Cb =

2.5M max

12.5M max

Rm 3.0

+ 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C

Eqn. 1

The required moments for Eqn. 1 can be calculated as a percentage of the maximum

mid-span moment. Since the loading is uniform and the resulting moment is symmetric:

1 L

M A = MC = 1 b

4 L

M=

M

=

1.00

max

B

2

1 L

1 5

MA =

MC =

1 b =

1 =

0.995

4 L

4 35

Cb =

12.5 (1.00 )

Cb = 1.002

M

M

=

=

5050 k-in

n

p

b M n =0.9 5050 /12

b M n =

378.75 k-ft

M=

M

=

1.00

max

B

2

1 L

1 11.667

MA =

MC =

1 b =

1

0.972

=

4 L

4 35

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Cb =

ETABS

0

12.5 (1.00 )

Cb = 1.014

L p < Lb < Lr , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:

Lb L p

M p

M n = C b M p (M p 0.7 Fy S 33 )

L

L

p

r

11.667 5.835

=

M n 1.014 5050 ( 5050 0.7 50 88.889 )

=

4088.733 k-in

16.966 5.835

b M n =

0.9 4088.733 /12

b M n =

306.657 k-ft

M=

M

=

1.00

max

B

2

1 L

1 35

MA =

MC =

1 b =

1 =

0.750 .

4 L

4 35

Cb =

12.5 (1.00 )

(1.00 )

Cb = 1.136

Lb > Lr , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:

Fcr =

Cb 2 E

Lb

r

ts

Jc

1 + 0.078

S 33 ho

Lb

rts

1.136 2 29000

1.24 1 420

1 + 0.078

14.133ksi

Fcr =

=

2

88.889 17.4 1.983

420

1.983

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

M n = Fcr S 33 M p

b M n =

0.9 1256.245 /12

b M n =

94.218 k-ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

BUILT UP WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

A demand capacity ratio is calculated for the built-up, ASTM A572 grade 50,

column shown below. An axial load of 70 kips (D) and 210 kips (L) is applied to

a simply supported column with a height of 15 ft.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Section compactness check (compression)

Warping constant calculation, Cw

Member compression capacity with slenderness reduction

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with the results from

Example E.2 AISC Design Examples, Volume 13.0 on the application of the 2005

AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10).

Output Parameter

Compactness

cPn (kips)

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Slender

Slender

0.00%

506.1

506.1

0.00 %

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

Section: Built-Up Wide Flange

d = 17.0 in, bf = 8.00 in, tf = 1.00 in, h = 15.0 in, tw = 0.250 in.

Ignoring fillet welds:

A = 2(8.00)(1.00) + (15.0)(0.250) = 19.75 in2

2(1.0)(8.0)3 (15.0)(0.25)3

Iy =

+

=85.35 in3

12

12

Iy

85.4

=

= 2.08 in.

ry =

A

19.8

I x = Ad 2 + I x

(0.250)(15.0)3 2(8.0)(1.0)3

+

= 1095.65 in 4

12

12

t1 + t2

1+1

d ' =

d

=

17

=

16 in

2

2

Iy d '2 (85.35)(16.0) 2

Cw =

=

= 5462.583 in 4

4

4

3

bt

2(8.0)(1.0) 3 + (15.0)(0.250) 3

J =

=

= 5.41 in 4

3

3

Member:

K = 1.0 for a pinned-pinned condition

L = 15 ft

I x = 2(8.0)(8.0) 2 +

Loadings:

Pu = 1.2(70.0) + 1.6(210) = 420 kips

Section Compactness:

Check for slender elements using Specification Section E7

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

b 4.0

=

= 4.0

t 1.0

E

29000

=

= 0.38 = 9.152

p 0.38

Fy

50

Flange is Compact.

Localized Buckling for Web:

h 15.0

=

= 60.0 ,

t 0.250

E

29000

=

= 1.49 = 35.9

r 1.49

Fy

50

Web is Slender.

Section is Slender

Member Compression Capacity:

Elastic Flexural Buckling Stress

Since the unbraced length is the same for both axes, the y-y axis will govern by

inspection.

KL y

ry

=

Fe

1.0(15 12 )

= 86.6

2.08

2 E

2 29000

= 38.18 ksi

=

2

2

(86.6 )

KL

Note: Torsional buckling will not govern if KLy > KLz, however, the check is included

here to illustrate the calculation.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2 EC

1

w

=

+ GJ

Fe

2

( K z L )

I x + I y

2 29000 5462.4

1

= 91.8 ksi > 38.18 ksi

Fe

=

+ 11200 5.41

2

1100 + 85.4

(180 )

Therefore, the flexural buckling limit state controls.

Fe = 38.18 ksi

Section Reduction Factors

Since the flange is not slender,

Qs = 1.0

Since the web is slender,

For equation E7-17, take f as Fcr with Q = 1.0

4.71

KLy

E

29000

=4.71

=113 >

=86.6

QFy

ry

1.0 ( 50 )

So

QFy

1.0( 50 )

Fe

f = Fcr = Q 0.658 Fy = 1.0 0.658 38.2 50 = 28.9 ksi

0.34 E

1

b, where b = h

(b t ) f

29000

0.34

29000

be = 1.92 ( 0.250 )

1

15.0in

28.9 (15.0 0.250 ) 28.9

=

be 12.5in 15.0in

be = 1.92t

E

f

Aeff =

betw + 2b f t f =

(12.5)( 0.250 ) + 2 (8.0 )(1.0 ) =19.1 in 2

where Aeff is effective area based on the reduced effective width of the web, be.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Aeff

19.1

=

= 0.968

A 19.75

=

Q Q=

=

(1.00 )( 0.968

) 0.968

s Qa

=

Qa

Determine whether Specification Equation E7-2 or E7-3 applies

4.71

KLy

E

29000

= 4.71

= 115.4 >

= 86.6

QFy

ry

0.966 ( 50 )

When 4.71

E

KL

QFy

r

QFy

1.0( 50 )

Fe

38.18

Fy 0.966 0.658

=

Fcr Q 0.658

=

=

50 28.47 ksi

Pn =Fcr Ag =28.5 19.75 =562.3kips

c =0.90

c P=

Fcr Ag= 0.90 ( 562.3=) 506.1kips > 420 kips

n

c Pn =

506.1kips

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The beam below is subjected to a bending moment of 20 kip-ft. The compression

flange is braced at 3.0 ft intervals. The selected member is non-compact due to

flange criteria.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

W6X12, M10X9,

W8X10

E = 29000 ksi

Loading

w = 1.0 klf

Geometry

Span, L = 12.65 ft

Section compactness check (bending)

Member bending capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from Allowable Stress Design Manual of Steel

Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Page 2-6.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Non-Compact

Non-Compact

0.00%

(ksi)

30.74

30.74

0.00%

Fb (ksi)

32.70

32.70

0.00 %

Output Parameter

Compactness

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

Section: W8x10

bf = 3.94 in, tf = 0.205 in, d = 7.98 in, tw = 0.17 in

Member:

L = 12.65 ft

lb = 3 ft

Loadings:

w = 1.0 k/ft

M=

wL2

= 1.0 12.652/8 = 20.0 k-ft

8

f=

M / S33= 20 12 / 7.8074

b

fb = 30.74 ksi

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

=

bf

3.94

=

= 9.610

2t f 2 0.205

=

p

r =

65

=

Fy

95

Fy

65

= 9.192

50

=

95

50

= 13.435

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

< r ,

Flange is Non-Compact.

Localized Buckling for Web:

d 7.89

=

= 46.412

tw 0.17

f

P

= 0 and a = 0 0.16,so

A

Fy

=

p

640

Fy

f 640

0

1 3.74 a =

1 3.74 =

90.510

F

50

50

Web is Compact.

Section is Non-Compact.

Allowable Bending Stress

Since section is Non-Compact

bf

=

Fb 33 0.79 0.002

2t f

Fb 33 =

Fy Fy

50 50

Fb 33 = 32.70 ksi

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Critical Length, lc:

76b f 20,000 A f

l c = min

,

dFy

Fy

,

lc = min

7.89 50

50

lc = 40.948 in

l22 =lb =3 12 =36 in

l 22 < l c , section capacity is as follows:

Fb 33 = 32.70 ksi

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The column design features for the AISC ASD-89 code are checked for the frame

shown below. This frame is presented in the Allowable Stress Design Manual of

Steel Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Pages 3-6 and 3-7. The

column K factors were overwritten to a value of 2.13 to match the example. The

transverse direction was assumed to be continuously supported. Two point loads

of 560 kips are applied at the tops of each column. The ratio of allow axial stress,

Fa, to the actual, fa, was checked and compared to the referenced design code.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Section compactness check (compression)

Member compression capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from Allowable Stress Design Manual of Steel

Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Pages 3-6 and 3-7.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compact

Compact

0.00%

15.86

15.86

0.00%

16.47

16.47

0.00%

Output Parameter

Compactness

Fa (ksi)

COMPUTER FILE: AISC ASD-89 EX002

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: A36 Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 36 ksi

Section: W12x120:

bf = 12.32 in, tf = 1.105 in, d =13.12 in, tw=0.71 in

A = 35.3 in2

rx=5.5056 in

Member:

K = 2.13

L = 15 ft

Loadings:

P = 560 kips

Design Axial Stress:

f=

a

P 560

=

A 35.3

f a = 15.86 ksi

Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

=

=

p

bf

12.32

=

= 5.575

2t f 2 1.105

65

=

Fy

65

= 10.83

36

Flange is Compact.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

f a 15.86

=

= 0.44

36

Fy

d 13.12

=

= 18.48

tw 0.71

fa

Since =

0.44 > 0.16

Fy

=

p

257 257

= = 42.83

Fy

36

Web is Compact.

Section is Compact.

Member Compression Capacity

KL x 2.13 (15 12 )

=

= 69.638

rx

5.5056

=

Cc

22 E

=

Fy

22 29000

= 126.099

36

KL x

rx

69.638

=

= 0.552

126.099

Cc

KL x

< Cc

rx

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Fa =

1 KL x rx

1.0

2 Cc

5 3 KL x rx

+

3 8 C c

ETABS

0

Fy

1 KL x rx

8 Cc

2

1.0 (0.552 ) 36

2

Fa =

1

5 3

3

+ (0.552 ) (0.552 )

8

3 8

Fa = 16.47 ksi

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The design flexural strengths are checked for the beam shown below. The beam

is loaded with an ultimate uniform load of 1.6 klf. The flexural moment capacity

is checked for three unsupported lengths in the weak direction, Lb = 4.375 ft,

11.667 ft and 35 ft.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

W18X40

E = 29000 ksi

Fy = 50 ksi

Loading

wu = 1.6 klf

Geometry

Span, L = 35 ft

Section compactness check (bending)

Member bending capacity

Unsupported length factors

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are comparing with the results of Example 5.1 in the 2nd

Edition, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, pages 5-12 to 5-15.

Output Parameter

Compactness

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compact

Compact

0.00%

1.003

1.002

0.10%

294.000

294.000

0.00%

1.015

1.014

0.10%

213.0319

212.703

0.15%

1.138

1.136

0.18%

50.6845

50.599

0.17%

Cb ( Lb =4.375ft)

b M n ( Lb =4.375 ft) (k-ft)

Cb ( Lb =11.67 ft)

b M n ( Lb = 11.67ft) (k-ft)

Cb ( Lb = 35ft)

b M n ( Lb = 35ft) (k-ft)

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

Fr = 10 ksi (for rolled shapes)

FL = Fy Fr = 50 10 = 40 ksi

Section: W18x40

bf = 6.02 in, tf = 0.525 in, d = 17.9 in, tw = 0.315 in

hc = d 2t f = 17.9 2 0.525 = 16.85 in

A = 11.8 in2

S33 = 68.3799 in3, Z33 = 78.4 in3

Iy = 19.1 in4, ry = 1.2723 in

Cw = 1441.528 in6, J = 0.81 in4

Other:

L = 35 ft

b = 0.9

Loadings:

wu = 1.6 k/ft

Mu =

wu L2

= 1.6 352/8 = 245.0 k-ft

8

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

=

=

p

bf

6.02

=

= 5.733

2t f 2 0.525

65

=

Fy

65

= 9.192

50

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Flange is Compact.

Localized Buckling for Web:

=

=

p

hc 16.85

=

= 53.492

tw 0.315

640 640

= = 90.510

Fy

50

Web is Compact.

Section is Compact.

Section Bending Capacity

Mp =

Fy Z 33 =

50 78.4 =

3920 k-in

Critical Lengths:

=

X1

EGJA

=

= 1806 ksi

S33

2

68.3799

2

2

Cw S33

1441.528

68.3799

=

=

4

0.0173in 4

X 2 4=

I 22 GJ

=

Lp

=

= 53.979in

= 4.498ft

Fy

50

=

Lr r22

=

Lr

X1

1 + 1 + X 2 FL 2

FL

1.27 1810

2

1 + 1 + 0.0172 40

=

144.8in

= 12.069 ft

40

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

For the lateral-torsional buckling limit state, the non-uniform moment magnification

factor is calculated using the following equation:

Cb =

2.5M max

12.5M max

Rm 3.0

+ 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C

Eqn. 1

The required moments for Eqn. 1 can be calculated as a percentage of the maximum

mid-span moment. Since the loading is uniform and the resulting moment is symmetric:

1 L

M A = MC = 1 b

4 L

M=

M

=

1.00

max

B

2

1L

1 4.375

1 b =

1

0.996

MA =

MC =

=

4 L

4 35

Cb =

12.5 (1.00 )

Cb = 1.002

M n = M p = Fy Z 33 = 50 78.4 = 3920 < 1.5S33 Fy = 1.5 68.3799 50 = 5128.493k-in

b M n =

294.0 k-ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

M=

M

=

1.00

max

B

2

1L

1 11.667

1 b =

1

0.972

MA =

MC =

=

4 L

4 35

Cb =

12.5 (1.00 )

Cb = 1.014

Lb Lp

M=

C

M

M

F

S

)

(

n

b

p

p

L 33

Lr L p

M p

11.667 4.486

=

=

M n 1.01 3920 ( 3920 40 68.4 )

2836.042 k-in

12.06 4.486

b M n =

212.7031 k-ft

=

M=

M

1.00

B

max

2

1L

1 35

1 b =

1 =

0.750 .

MA =

MC =

4 L

4 35

Cb =

12.5 (1.00 )

(1.00 )

Cb = 1.136

Lb > Lr , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:

M n = Fcr S 33 M p

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

E

Cb

=

M cr

EI 22GJ +

I 22CW

Lb

Lb

1.136

29000

=

29000 19.1 11153.85 0.81 +

M cr

19.1 1441.528

35 12

35 12

2

M

=

M

=

674.655 k-in

n

cr

b M n =0.9 674.655 /12

b M n =

50.599 k-ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BIAXIAL BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

A check of the column adequacy is checked for combined axial compression and

flexural loads. The column is 14 feet tall and loaded with an axial load,

Pu = 1400 kips and bending, M ux , M uy = 200k-ft and 70k-ft, respectively. It is

assumed that there is reverse-curvature bending with equal end moments about

both axes and no loads along the member. The column demand/capacity ratio is

checked against the results of Example 6.2 in the 3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of

Steel Construction, pages 6-6 to 6-8.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

W14X176

E = 29000 ksi

Fy = 50 ksi

Loading

Pu = 1,400 kips

Mux = 200 kip-ft

Muy = 70 kip-ft

Geometry

H = 14.0 ft

Section compactness check (compression)

Member compression capacity

Member bending capacity

Demand/capacity ratio, D/C

AISC LRFD-93 Example 002 - 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with the results from

Example 6.2 in the 3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, pages 6-6 to

6-8.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Compact

Compact

0.00%

c Pn (kips)

1937.84

1937.84

0.00%

b M nx (k-ft)

1200

1200

0.00%

b M ny (k-ft)

600.478

600.478

0.00%

0.974

0.974

0.00%

Output Parameter

D/C

COMPUTER FILE: AISC LRFD-93 EX002

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A992 Grade 50 Steel

Fy = 50 ksi, E = 29,000 ksi

Section: W14x176

A = 51.8 in2,

bf = 15.7 in, tf = 1.31 in, d = 15.2 in, tw = 0.83 in

hc = d 2t f = 15.2 2 1.31 = 12.58 in

Ix = 2,140 in4, Iy = 838 in4, rx = 6.4275 in, ry = 4.0221 in

Sx = 281.579 in3, Sy = 106.7516 in3, Zx = 320.0 in3, Zy = 163.0 in3.

Member:

Kx = Ky = 1.0

L = Lb = 14 ft

Other

c =0.85

b =0.9

Loadings:

Pu = 1400 kips

Mux = 200 k-ft

Muy = 70 k-ft

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

/ 2)

( b=

(15.7

f / 2)

=

= 5.99

tf

1.31

=

p

65

=

Fy

65

= 9.19

50

Flange is Compact.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

h 12.58

= c=

= 15.16

tw 0.83

b Py =

b Ag Fy =

0.9 51.8 50 =

2331 kips

Pu

1400

=

= 0.601

b Py 2331

Pu

Since =

0.601 > 0.125

b Py

=

p

191

Fy

P

2.33 u

b Py

253

Fy

191

253

=

( 2.33 0.601

) 46.714 = 35.780

50

50

< p , No localized web buckling

=

p

Web is Compact.

Section is Compact.

Member Compression Capacity:

For braced frames, K = 1.0 and KxLx = KyLy = 14.0 ft, From AISC Table 4-2,

c Pn =

1940 kips

Or by hand,

=

c

K y L Fy 1.0 14 12

50

=

= 0.552

ry E

4.022 29000

Fcr =

Fy 0.658c

50 0.658

)=

0.5522

=

44.012 ksi

c Pn =

c Fcr Ag =

0.85 44.012 51.8

c Pn =

1937.84 kips

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Pu

1400

=

= 0.722 > 0.2

c Pn 1937.84

Therefore, LRFD Specification Equation H1-1a governs.

Section Bending Capacity

50 310

=

= 1333.333 k-ft

M

F=

px

yZx

12

M py = Fy Z y

Zy

163

However,=

= 1.527 > 1.5,

S y 106.7516

So

Zy =

1.5 S y =

1.5 106.7516 =

160.1274in 3

=

M py

50 160.1274

= 667.198 k-ft

12

From LRFD Specification Equation F1-4,

L p = 1.76ry

E

Fyf

L=

1.76 4.02

p

29000 1

= 14.2 ft > L=

14 ft

b

12

50

b M nx =

b M px

b M nx =0.9 1333.333

b M nx =

1200 k-ft

b M ny =

b M py

b M ny =

0.9 667.198

b M ny =

600.478 k-ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

From LRFD Specification section C1.2, for a braced frame, Mlt = 0.

M ux = B1x M ntx , where M ntx = 200 kip-ft; and

M uy = B1 y M nty , where M nty = 70 kip-ft

B1 =

Cm

P

1 u

Pe1

M1

= +1.0

M2

M

C m = 0.6 0.4 1

M2

C m = 0.6 0.4(1.0 ) = 0.2

pe1 =

=

pe1x

2 EI

( KL )

2 29000 2140

=

21, 702 kips

2

(14.0 12 )

2 29000 838

=

8, 498

pe1 y =

2

(14.0 12 )

B1x =

C mx

Pu

1

Pe1x

0.2

=

B1x

= 0.214 1

1400

21702

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

B1x = 1

C my

P

u

1

P

e1 y

0.2

=

B1 y

= 0.239 1

1400

1

8498

B1 y = 1

B1 y =

and

M uy = 1.0 70 = 70 kip-ft

From LRFD Specification Equation H1-1a,

1400 8 200

70

+

+

0.974 < 1.0 , OK

=

1940 9 1200 600.478

D

= 0.974

C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

A continuous column is subjected to factored load N = 200 kN. This example

was tested using the AS4100-1998 steel frame design code. The design capacities

are compared with independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

L

A

Section A-A

L=6m

Material Properties

E = 200x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 76923.08 MPa

Loading

N =

200 kN

Design Properties

fy = 250 MPa

Section: 350WC197

Section compactness check (compression)

Section compression capacity

Member compression capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-AS-4100-1998.pdf, which is

also available through the program Help menu.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Compact

Compact

0.00%

6275

6275

0.00%

4385

4385

0.00%

Ns (kN)

Member Axial Capacity,

Nc (kN)

COMPUTER FILE: AS 4100-1998 EX001

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

fy = 250 MPa

Section: 350WC197

Ag = An = 25100 mm2

bf = 350 mm, tf = 28 mm, h = 331 mm, tw = 20 mm

r33 = 139.15 mm, r22 = 89.264 mm

Member:

le33 = le22 = 6000 mm (unbraced length)

Considered to be a braced frame

Loadings:

N * 200 kN

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

e

(b f t w )

fy

2tf

250

350 20

250

2 28

250

5.89

ep 9, ey 16, ew 90

e 5 .8 9 ep 9 , No localized flange buckling

Flange is compact

Localized Buckling for Web:

e

fy

tw

250

331

250

20

250

16.55

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

ep 30, ey 45, ew 180

e 16.55 ep 30 , No localized web buckling

Web is compact.

Section is Compact.

Section is not Slender, so Kf = 1.0

N s K f An f y 1 25,100 250 / 10

N s 6275kN

Frame is considered a braced frame in both directions, so k e 22 k e 33 1

le 22

r2 2

6000

67.216 and

le 33

89.264

r3 3

6000

43.119

139.15

n 22

a 22

l e 22

K f fy

r22

250

6000

89.264

2 1 0 0 ( n 2 2 1 3 .5)

n 2 2 1 5 .3 n 2 2 2 0 5 0

2

1 250

67.216

250

2 0 .3 6 3

22 n 22 a 22 b 22 67.216 20.363 0.5 77.398

22 0.00326( 22 13.5) 0.2083 0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

22

22

1 22

90

c 22 22

c 22

2 22

90

ETABS 2013

0

77.398

1 0.2083

90

77.398

2

90

1.317

90

1

2 2 2 2

1.317 1

90

1.317 77.398

0.6988

N c 22 c 22 N s N s

N c 22 0.6988 6275 4385 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object bending strengths are tested in this example.

A continuous column is subjected to factored moment Mx = 1000 kN-m. This

example was tested using the AS 4100-1998 steel frame design code. The design

capacities are compared with independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Mx

L

A

Section A-A

L=6m

Material Properties

E = 200x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 76923.08 MPa

Loading

Mx =

1000 kN-m

Design Properties

fy = 250 MPa

Section: 350WC197

Section compactness check (bending)

Section bending capacity

Member bending capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-AS-4100-1998.pdf, which is

also available through the program Help menu.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Compact

Compact

0.00%

837.5

837.5

0.00%

837.5

837.5

0.00%

Ms,major (kN-m)

Member Bending Capacity,

Mb (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

fy = 250 MPa

Section: 350WC197

bf = 350 mm, tf = 28 mm, h = 331 mm, tw = 20 mm

I22 = 200,000,000 mm4

Z33 = 2,936,555.891 mm2

S33 = 3,350,000 mm2

J

= 5,750,000 mm4

Iw = 4,590,000,000,000 mm6

Member:

le22 = 6000 mm (unbraced length)

Considered to be a braced frame

Loadings:

M m * 1000 kN -m

M 2 * 250 kN -m

M 3 * 500 kN -m

M 4 * 750 kN -m

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

e

(b f t w )

fy

2tf

250

350 20

250

2 28

250

5.89

ep 9, ey 16, ew 90

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

e 5.89 ep 9 ,

ETABS 2013

0

Flange is compact

Localized Buckling for Web:

e

fy

tw

250

331

250

20

250

16.55

ep 82, ey 115, ew 180

e 16.55 ep 30 ,

Web is compact.

Section is Compact.

Section Bending Capacity:

Z e Z c min( S ,1.5 Z ) for compact sections

Z e 33 Z c 33 3, 350, 000 m m

M s 33 M s ,m ajor 837.5 kN -m

kt = 1 (Program default)

kl = 1.4 (Program default)

kr = 1 (Program default)

lLTB = le22 = 6000 mm

l e k t k l k r l L T B 1 1.4 1 6000 8400 m m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

2

2 EI

EIw

22

G

J

2

2

le

le

M oa M o

M oa M o

ETABS 2013

0

2

5

12

2 2 10 5 2 10 8

2 10 4.59 10

76,

923.08

5,

750,

000

2

2

8, 400

8, 400

M oa M o 1786.938 kN -m

s 0.6

M 2

Ms

s

M oa

M oa

0.6

837.5 2

837.5

1786.938

1786.938

s 0.7954

m

1.7 M m *

M 2 * M 3 * M 4 *

2

1.7 1000

250

500 750

2

2.5

2

1.817 2.5

2

M b 1210.64 kN -m 837.5 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object interacting axial and bending strengths are tested in this

example.

A continuous column is subjected to factored loads and moments N = 200 kN;

Mx = 1000 kN-m. This example was tested using the AS4100-1998 steel frame

design code. The design capacities are compared with independent hand

calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Mx

N

L

A

Section A-A

L=6m

Material Properties

E = 200x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 76923.08 MPa

Loading

N =

Mx =

200 kN

1000 kN-m

Design Properties

fy = 250 MPa

Section: 350WC197

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

Section compactness check (bending, compression)

Section bending capacity with compression reduction

Member bending capacity with in-plane compression reduction

Member bending capacity with out-of-plane compression reduction

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-AS-4100-1998.pdf, which is

available through the program Help menu.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Compact

Compact

0.00%

837.5

837.5

0.00%

823.1

823.1

0.00%

837.5

837.5

0.00%

Mr33 (kN-m)

Reduced In-Plane Member Bending

Capacity,

Mi33 (kN-m)

Reduced Out-of-Plane Member

Bending Capacity, Mo (kN-m)

COMPUTER FILE: AS 4100-1998 EX003

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Section: 350WC197

Ag = An = 25100 mm2

I22 = 200,000,000 mm4

I33 = 486,000,000 mm4

J

= 5,750,000 mm4

Iw = 4,590,000,000,000 mm6

Member:

lz=le33 = le22 = 6000 mm (unbraced length)

Considered to be a braced frame

=0.9

Loadings:

N * 200 kN

M m * 1000 kN m

Section Compactness:

From example SFD IN-01-1, section is Compact in Compression

From example SFD IN-01-2, section is Compact in Bending

Section Compression Capacity:

From example SFD IN-01-1, N s 6275kN

Member Compression Capacity:

From example SFD IN-01-1, N c 22 4385 kN

Section Bending Capacity:

From example SFD IN-01-2, M s 33 M s , m ajor 837.5 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

N*

200

M r 33 1.18 M s 33 1

1.18 837.5 1

M s 33 837.5

N s

0.9 6275

M r 33 953.252 837.5

M r 33 837.5kN -m

Strong-axis buckling strength needs to be calculated:

Frame is considered a braced frame in both directions, so k e 33 1

le 3 3

r3 3

6000

43.119

139.15

n 33

a 33

l e 33

K f fy

r33

250

6000

139.15

2100( n 3 3 13.5)

n 3 3 15.3 n 3 3 2050

2

1 250

43.119

250

19.141

33 n 33 a 33 b 33 43.119 19.141 0.5 52.690

2

33

33

1 33

90

2 33

90

52.690

1 0.1278

90

52.690

2

90

2.145

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

c 33

33 1

c 33

2.145 1

ETABS 2013

0

90

1

33 33

90

1

0.8474

2.145 50.690

N c 33 c 33 N s N s

N c 33 0.8474 6275

N c 33 5318 kN

m

M m in

M m ax

1000

3

3

N*

N*

1 m

1 m

M i M s 33 1

1.18

1

1

N c 33

N c 33

2

2

3

3

200

200

1 0

1 0

M i 837.5 1

1

1.18

0.9 5318

0.9 5318

2

2

M i 823.11 kN -m

bc

1

1

N *

1 m

m

0

.4

0

.2

3

2

N c 2 2

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

bc

ETABS 2013

0

1

1 0 1 0

200

0.4 0.23

2

0.9 4385

2

bc 4.120

EIw

2

N oz G J

lz

2 10 4.59 10

2

76923.08 5.75 10

6

I 33 I 22

Ag

N oz 4.423 10

11

12

6000

4.86 2 10 8

25100

kN

M b 33 o 1.0 0.7954 837.5 666.145 kN -m

N *

N*

M o 33 bc M b 33 o 1

1

M r 33

N

c 22

oz

200

200

M o 33 4.12 666.145 1

2674 837.5

1

11

0.9 4385

0.9 4.423 10

M o 33 837.5 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE SECTION UNDER BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object moment and shear strength is tested in this example.

A simply supported beam is laterally restrained along its full length and is

subjected to a uniform factored load of 69 kN/m and a factored point load at the

mid-span of 136 kN. This example was tested using the BS 5950-2000 steel

frame design code. The moment and shear strengths are compared with

independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

L=6.5 m

Material Properties

E = 205000 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 78846.15 MPa

Loading

W = 69 kN/m

P = 136 kN

Design Properties

Ys = 275 MPa

Section: UB533x210x92

Section compactness check (bending)

Section bending capacity

Section shear capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the methods in Example 2 on

page 5 of the SCI Publication P326, Steelwork Design Guide to BS5950-1:2000

Volume 2: Worked Examples by M.D. Heywood & J.B. Lim.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Class 1

Class 1

0.00%

Design Moment,

M33 (kN-m)

585.4

585.4

0.00%

292.25

292.25

0.00%

Moment Capacity,

Mc (kN-m)

649.0

649

0.00%

888.4

888.4

0.00%

Output Parameter

Compactness

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

E = 205000 MPa

Ys = 275 MPa

Section: UB533x210x92

Ag = 11,700 mm2

D = 533.1 mm, b = 104.65 mm

t = 10.1 mm, T = 15.6 mm

d = D 2t = 533.1 2 10.1 = 501.9 mm

Z33 = 2,072,031.5 mm3

S33 = 2,360,000 mm3

Loadings:

Paxial = 0

wu = (1.4wd + 1.6wl) = 1.4(15) + 1.6(30) = 69 kN/m

Pu = (1.4Pd + 1.6Pl) = 1.4(40) + 1.6(50) = 136 kN

wu l 2 Pu l 69 6.52 136 6.5

Mu =

+

=

+

8

4

8

4

M u = 585.4 kN-m

=

Fv

wu l + Pu 69 6.5 + 136

=

2

2

Fv = 292.25 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Section Compactness:

=

r1

P

= 0 (since there is no axial force)

dt y

=

r2

P

= 0 (since there is no axial force)

Ag y

275

=

y

275

= 1

275

=

b 104.65

=

= 6.71

T

15.6

ep = 9 = 9

=

6.71 < =

p 9 , No localized flange buckling

Flange is Class 1.

Localized Buckling for Web:

=

d 501.9

=

= 49.69

10.1

t

p= 80= 80

=

49.69 <=

p 80 , No localized web buckling

Web is Class 1.

Section is Class 1.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Pv 2 = 0.6 y Av 2 = 0.6 275 5384.31

Pv 2 = 888.4 kN

With Shear Reduction:

0.6 P

=

533 kN > =

Fv 292.3kN

v2

So no shear reduction is needed in calculating the bending capacity.

=

M c 649 kN-m 683.77 kN-m

M c = 649 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

SQUARE TUBE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION & BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial and moment strengths are tested in this example.

A continuous column is subjected to factored loads and moments N = 640 kN;

Mx = 10.5 kN-m; My = 0.66 kN-m. The moment on the column is caused by

eccentric beam connections. This example was tested using the BS 5950-2000

steel frame design code. The design capacities are compared with independent

hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

N

Mx

My

H

A

Section A-A

H=5m

Material Properties

E = 205000 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 78846.15 MPa

Loading

N =

Mx =

My =

640 kN

10.5 kN-m

0.66 kN-m

Design Properties

Ys = 355 MPa

Section compactness check (compression & bending)

Member compression capacity

Section bending capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from Example 15 on page 83 of the SCI Publication

P326, Steelwork Design Guide to BS5950-1:2000 Volume 2: Worked Examples

by M.D. Heywood & J.B. Lim.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Class 1

Class 1

0.00%

773.2

773.2

0.00%

68.3

68.3

0.00%

Axial Capacity,

Nc (kN)

Bending Capacity,

Mc (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

E = 205000 MPa

G = 78846.15 MPa

Ys = 355 MPa

Section: RHS 150x150x6.3:

Ag = 3580 mm2

D = B = 150 mm, T=t = 6.3 mm

b = B 3 t = d = D 3 T = 150 2 6.3 = 131.1mm

r33 = 58.4483 mm

Z33 = 163,066.7 mm3

S33 = 192,301.5 mm3

Loadings:

N = 640 kN

Mx = 10.5 kN-m

My = 0.66 kN-m

Fv33 = Mx/H = 10.5 / 5 = 2.1 kN

Section Compactness:

=

r1

=

P

640

=

= 0.002183

dt y 131 6.3 355

275

=

275

= 0.880

355

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

b 131.1

=

= 20.81

T

6.3

d

131.1

p= 28 < 80 = 28 0.880 < 80 0.880

t

6.3

=

24.6 < 49.6

p

=

20.81 <=

p 24.6 , No localized flange buckling

Flange is Compact.

Localized Buckling for Web:

=

=

p

d 131.1

=

= 20.81 :

t

6.3

64

64 0.88

< 40

=

< 40 0.88

= 56.3 > 35.2

1 + 0.6r1

1 + 0.6 0.002183

So p =

35.2

=

20.81 <=

p 35.2 , No localized web buckling

Web is compact.

Section is Compact.

Member Compression Capacity:

l

K l

1.0 5000

22 = 33 =e 33 = 33 33 =

=

85.546

58.4483

r33

r33

=

max { 22 , =

85.546

33 }

2 E

2 205000

=

o 0.2= 0.2

= 15.1

y

355

Robertson Constant: a = 2.0 (from Table VIII-3 for Rolled Box Section in CSI

code documentation)

Perry Factor:

=

0.001a ( =

0 ) 0.001 2 ( 85.546 15.1

=

) 0.141

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2 E 2 205000

Euler Strength: =

=

= 276.5 MPa

E

2

85.5462

=

c

=

= 355.215 MPa

2

2

E y

276.5 355

=

= 215.967 MPa

+ 2 E y 335.215 + 335.2152 276.5 355

=

N c A=

3580 215.967

g c

N c = 773.2 kN

Section Shear Capacity:

D

150

Av =

Ag

3580

1790 mm 2

=

=

+

+

D

B

150

150

Pv = 381.3kN

Section Bending Capacity:

With Shear Reduction

0.6=

Pv 228.8 kN=

> Fv 2.1kN

So no shear reduction is needed in calculating the bending capacity.

Mc =

y S33 1.2 y Z 33 =

355 192,301.5 1.2 355 163, 066.7

=

M c 68.3kN-m 69.5 kN-m

M c = 68.3kN-m

With LTB Reduction

Not considered since the section is square.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION & BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object moment and shear strength is tested in this example.

A simply supported beam is (a) laterally restrained along its full length, (b)

laterally restrained along its quarter points, at mid-span, and at the ends (c)

laterally restrained along mid-span, and is subjected to a uniform factored load of

DL = 7 kN/m and LL = 15 kN/m. This example was tested using the CSA S1609 steel frame design code. The moment and shear strengths are compared with

Handbook of Steel construction (9th Edition) results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

L = 8.0 m

Material Properties

E=

Fy =

2x108 kN/m2

350 kN/m2

Loading

WD =

WL =

Design Properties

7 kN/m

15 kN/m

ASTM A992

CSA G40.21 350W

W410X46

W410X60

Section compactness check (bending)

Member bending capacity, Mr (fully restrained)

Member bending capacity, Mr (buckling)

Member bending capacity, Mr (LTB)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULT COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from Examples 1, 2 and 3 on pages 5-84 and 5-85

of the Hand Book of Steel Construction to CSA S16-01 published by Canadian

Institute of Steel Construction.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Class 1

Class 1

0.00%

250.0

250.0

0.00%

W410X46 (kN-m) w/ lb = 0 m

278.775

278.775

0.00%

W410X46 (kN-m) w/ lb = 2 m

268.97

268.83

0.05%

W410X60 (kN-m) w/ lb = 4 m

292.10

292.05

0.02%

Output Parameter

Compactness

Design Moment, Mf (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: CSA G40.21 Grade 350W

fy = 350 MPa

E = 200,000 MPa

G = 76923 MPa

Section: W410x46

bf = 140 mm, tf = 11.2 mm, d = 404 mm, tw = 7 mm

Ag = 5890 mm2

I22 = 5,140,000 mm4

Z33 = 885,000 mm3

J

= 192,000 mm4

=

Cw 1.976 1011 mm 6

Section: W410x60

bf = 178 mm, tf = 12.8 mm, d = 408 mm, tw = 7.7 mm

Ag = 7580 mm2

I22 = 12,000,000 mm4

Z33= 1,190,000 mm3

J

= 328,000 mm4

=

Cw 4.698 1011 mm 6

Member:

L=8m

= 0.9

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Loadings:

wf = (1.25wd + 1.5wl) = 1.25(7) + 1.5(15) = 31.25 kN/m

=

Mf

w f L2 31.25 82

=

8

8

M f = 250 kN-m

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

=

Cl .1

145

=

Fy

145

= 7.75

350

W410x46

bf

140

=

= 6.25

2t f 2 11.2

Flange is Class 1.

W410x60

=

bf

178

=

= 6.95

2t f 2 12.8

Flange is Class 1.

Localized Buckling for Web:

Cf

1100

1 0.39

Cy

Fy

Cl .1 =

1100

0

=

1 0.39

=58.8

5890 350

350

W410x46

h 381.6

=

= 54.51

tw

7

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Web is Class 1.

Section is Class 1

W410x60

h 382.4

=

= 49.66

tw

7.7

Web is Class 1.

Section is Class 1

Calculation of 2:

2 is calculated from the moment profile so is independent of cross section and is

calculated as:

2 =

4 M max

M max 2 + 4 M a 2 + 7 M b 2 + 4 M c 2

Ma = moment at unrestrained span

Mb = moment at unrestrained span

Mc = moment at unrestrained span

Section Bending Capacity for W410x46:

M p = Fy Z 33 = 350 885,000 / 10 6 = 309.75 kN-m

Lb = 0, so Mmax = Ma = Mb = Mc = Mu = 250 kN-m and 2 = 1.000

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2

E

=

Mu

EI 22GJ +

I 22Cw as L 0

L

L

2

M p 33

M r=

1.15M p 33 1 0.28

M p 33

33

Mu

0.28

M p 33

Mu

0 as M u

leading to M =

1.15 M p 33 > M p 33

r 33

So

M r 33 =

M p 33 =

278.775 kN-m

M a @ x=

a

Ma =

L Lb Lb 8 2 2

+ =

+ = 3.5 m

2

4

2

4

f Lxa

2

f xa 2

2

=

= 246.094 kN-m

2

2

Mmax = Mb = 250 kN-m @ 4000 mm

4 250

= 1.008

2

250 + 4 246.0942 + 7 2502 + 4 246.0942

2 = 1.008

2

E

EI 22GJ +

I 22Cw

L

L

2

Mu

=

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

( 2 10 )

( 5.14 10 )(197.6 10 )

+

2000

5

Mu =

1.008

2000

ETABS

0

=

M u 537.82 106 N-mm = 537.82 kN-m

0.67 M p = 0.67 309.75 = 208 < M u = 537.82 kN-m, so

M p 33

M r=

1.15M p 33 1 0.28

M p 33

33

Mu

309.75

= 268.89 kN-m < 278.775 kN-m

537.82

M r 33 = 268.89 kN-m

M p = Fy Z 33 = 350 1190,000 / 10 6 = 416.5 kN-m

M a @ x=

a

Ma =

L Lb Lb 8 4 4

+ =

+ = 3m

2

4

2

4

f Lxa

2

f xa 2

2

31.25 8 3 31.25 32

=

= 234.375 kN-m

2

2

Mmax = Mb = 250 kN-m @ 4000 mm

2

4 250

= 1.032

2

250 + 4 234.3752 + 7 2502 + 4 234.3752

2 = 1.032

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2

E

=

Mu

EI 22GJ +

I 22Cw

Ly

L

2

( 2 10 )

(12 10 )( 469.8 10 )

+

4000

5

Mu =

1.032

4000

=

M u 362.06 106 N-mm = 362.06 kN-m

0.67 M p = 0.67 309.75 = 279 < M u = 362.06 kN-m, so

M p 33

M r=

M

1.15

0.28

M p 33

33

p 33

Mu

416.5

362.06

M r 33 = 292.23kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION & BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial and moment strengths are tested in this example.

A continuous column is subjected to factored loads and moments Cf = 2000 kN;

Mfx-top= 200 kN-m; Mfx-bottom= 300 kN-m. This example was tested using the CSA

S16-09 steel frame design code. The design capacities are compared with

Handbook of Steel Construction (9th Edition) results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

2000 kN

Mxf = 200 kN-m

3.7 m

W310x118

Mxf = 300 kN-m

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

200,000 MPa

0.3

76,923.08 MPa

Section A-A

Loading

Design Properties

Cf

= 2000 kN

Mfx-top

= 200 kN-m

Mfx-bottom = 300 kN-m

fy = 345 MPa

Section compactness check (compression & bending)

Member compression capacity

Member bending capacity with no mid-span loading

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from Example 1 on page 4-114 of the Hand Book

of Steel Construction to CSA S16-01 published by the Canadian Institute of Steel

Construction.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Class 2

Class 2

0.00%

3849.5

3849.5

0.00%

(kN-m)

605.5

605.5

0.00%

Output Parameter

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

fy = 345 MPa

E = 200,000 MPa

G = 76923.08 MPa

Section: W310x118

Ag = 15000 mm2

r33 = 135.4006 mm, r22 = 77.5457 mm

I22 = 90,200,000 mm4

Z33 = 1,950,000 mm3

J = 1,600,000 mm4

=

Cw 1.966 1012 mm 6

ro 2 = xo 2 + yo 2 + r22 2 + r332 = 02 + 02 + 77.5457 2 + 135.40062

ro 2 = 24346.658 mm 2

Member:

lz= le33 = le22 = 3700 mm (unbraced length)

kz=k33 = k22 =1.0

=0.9

Loadings:

C f = 2000 kN

=

Ma M

=

200 kN-m

xf ,top

=

Mb M

=

300 kN-m

xf ,bottom

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

Cl .1=

145

=

Fy

145

= 7.81

345

Cl .2=

170

=

Fy

170

= 9.15

345

bf

307

=

= 8.21

2t f 2 18.7

Cl .1 < < Cl .2 ,

Flange is Class 2.

Localized Buckling for Web:

=

C y f=

y Ag

=

Cl .1

=

345 15000

= 5175 kN

1000

C f 1100

1100

2000

=

1 0.39 =

1 0.39

50.30

Cy

5175

Fy

345

h 276.6

=

= 23.24

tw 11.9

< Cl .1 ,

Web is Class 1.

Section is Class 2

Flexural Buckling

n = 1.34 (wide flange section)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

= max( 22 , 33 ) = 22 =

Cr = Ag Fy 1 +

2n

1

n

k22l22

r22

fy

E

ETABS

0

1.0 3700

345

= 0.6308

77.5457 200000

21.34

1

1.34

Cr = 3489.5 kN

Fex

=

2 E

2 2 105

2643MPa

=

=

2

2

k33l33

1 3700

135.4006

r33

2 E

2 2 105

=

Fey =

=

867 MPa

2

2

k22l22

1 3700

77.5457

r22

2 EC

1

w

=

Fez

+ GJ

2

(k l )

Ag ro 2

zz

1

Fez

=

+ 76923.08 1.6 106

2

15000 24347

(1 3700 )

F

=

min ( Fex , Fey , Fez=

867 MPa

) F=

e

ey

Cr = Ag Fe 1 + 2 n

1

n

1

1.34

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2

M

M

=

1.75 + 1.05 a + 0.3 a 2.5

2

Mb

Mb

2

200

200

=

1.75 + 1.05

2

+ 0.3

= 2.583 2.5

300

300

So 2 =2.5

2

E

2

=

Mu

EI 22GJ +

I 22Cw

l22

l22

Mu

=

2.5

3700

2 105

7

12

2 105 9.02 107 76923.08 1.6 106 +

9.02 10 1.966 10

3700

M u = 3163.117 kN-m

Since M u > 0.67 M p 33

M p 33

M r=

1.15M p 33 1 0.28

M p 33

33

Mu

672.75

0.9 672.75

3163.117

=

M r 33 654.830 605.475

M r 33 = 605.5 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION & BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object moment and shear strength is tested in this example.

A simply supported beam is (a) laterally restrained along its full length, (b)

laterally restrained along its quarter points, at mid-span, and at the ends (c)

laterally restrained along mid-span, and is subjected to a uniform factored load of

DL = 7 kN/m and LL = 15 kN/m. This example was tested using the CSA S1614 steel frame design code. The moment and shear strengths are compared with

Handbook of Steel construction (9th Edition) results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

L = 8.0 m

Material Properties

E=

Fy =

2x108 kN/m2

350 kN/m2

Design Properties

Loading

WD =

WL =

7 kN/m

15 kN/m

ASTM A992

CSA G40.21 350W

W410X46

W410X60

Section compactness check (bending)

Member bending capacity, Mr (fully restrained)

Member bending capacity, Mr (buckling)

Member bending capacity, Mr (LTB)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULT COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from Examples 1, 2 and 3 on pages 5-84 and 5-85

of the Hand Book of Steel Construction to CSA S16-01 published by Canadian

Institute of Steel Construction.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Class 1

Class 1

0.00%

250.0

250.0

0.00%

W410X46 (kN-m) w/ lb = 0 m

278.775

278.775

0.00%

W410X46 (kN-m) w/ lb = 2 m

268.97

268.83

0.05%

W410X60 (kN-m) w/ lb = 4 m

292.10

292.05

0.02%

Output Parameter

Compactness

Design Moment, Mf (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: CSA G40.21 Grade 350W

fy = 350 MPa

E = 200,000 MPa

G = 76923 MPa

Section: W410x46

bf = 140 mm, tf = 11.2 mm, d = 404 mm, tw = 7 mm

h = d 2t f = 404 2 11.2 = 381.6 mm

Ag = 5890 mm2

I22 = 5,140,000 mm4

Z33 = 885,000 mm3

J

= 192,000 mm4

=

Cw 1.976 1011 mm 6

Section: W410x60

bf = 178 mm, tf = 12.8 mm, d = 408 mm, tw = 7.7 mm

h = d 2t f = 408 2 12.8 = 382.4 mm

Ag = 7580 mm2

I22 = 12,000,000 mm4

Z33= 1,190,000 mm3

J

= 328,000 mm4

=

Cw 4.698 1011 mm 6

Member:

L=8m

= 0.9

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Loadings:

wf = (1.25wd + 1.5wl) = 1.25(7) + 1.5(15) = 31.25 kN/m

Mf

=

w f L2 31.25 82

=

8

8

M f = 250 kN-m

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

Cl .1

=

145

=

Fy

145

= 7.75

350

W410x46

=

bf

140

=

= 6.25

2t f 2 11.2

Flange is Class 1.

W410x60

=

bf

178

=

= 6.95

2t f 2 12.8

Flange is Class 1.

Localized Buckling for Web:

Cf

1100

1 0.39

Cy

Fy

Cl .1 =

1100

0

=

1 0.39

=58.8

5890

350

350

W410x46

h 381.6

=

= 54.51

tw

7

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Web is Class 1.

Section is Class 1

W410x60

h 382.4

=

= 49.66

tw

7.7

Web is Class 1.

Section is Class 1

Calculation of 2:

2 is calculated from the moment profile so is independent of cross section and is

calculated as:

2 =

4 M max

M max 2 + 4 M a 2 + 7 M b 2 + 4 M c 2

Ma = moment at unrestrained span

Mb = moment at unrestrained span

Mc = moment at unrestrained span

Section Bending Capacity for W410x46:

M p = 0.9 309.75 = 278.775 kN-m

Lb = 0, so Mmax = Ma = Mb = Mc = Mu = 250 kN-m and 2 = 1.000

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2

E

Mu

EI 22GJ +

=

I 22Cw as L 0

L

L

2

M p 33

M r=

1.15M p 33 1 0.28

M p 33

33

Mu

0.28

M p 33

Mu

0 as M u

leading to M =

1.15 M p 33 > M p 33

r 33

So

278.775 kN-m

M r 33 =

M p 33 =

M a @ x=

a

Ma =

L Lb Lb 8 2 2

+ =

+ = 3.5 m

2

4

2

4

f Lxa

2

f xa 2

2

=

= 246.094 kN-m

2

2

Mmax = Mb = 250 kN-m @ 4000 mm

4 250

= 1.008

2

250 + 4 246.0942 + 7 2502 + 4 246.0942

2 = 1.008

2

E

EI 22GJ +

I 22Cw

L

L

2

Mu

=

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

( 2 10 )

( 5.14 10 )(197.6 10 )

+

2000

5

Mu =

1.008

2000

ETABS

0

=

M u 537.82 106 N-mm = 537.82 kN-m

M p 33

M r=

1.15M p 33 1 0.28

M p 33

33

Mu

309.75

= 268.89 kN-m < 278.775 kN-m

537.82

M r 33 = 268.89 kN-m

M p = 0.9 416.5 = 374.85 kN-m

M a @ x=

a

Ma =

L Lb Lb 8 4 4

+ =

+ = 3m

2

4

2

4

f Lxa

2

f xa 2

2

31.25 8 3 31.25 32

=

= 234.375 kN-m

2

2

Mmax = Mb = 250 kN-m @ 4000 mm

4 250

= 1.032

2

250 + 4 234.3752 + 7 2502 + 4 234.3752

2 = 1.032

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2

E

Mu

EI 22GJ +

=

I 22Cw

Ly

L

2

( 2 10 )

(12 10 )( 469.8 10 )

+

4000

5

Mu =

1.032

4000

=

M u 362.06 106 N-mm = 362.06 kN-m

0.67 M p = 0.67 309.75 = 279 < M u = 362.06 kN-m, so

M p 33

M r=

M

1.15

0.28

M p 33

p 33

33

Mu

416.5

362.06

M r 33 = 292.23kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION & BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial and moment strengths are tested in this example.

A continuous column is subjected to factored loads and moments Cf = 2000 kN;

Mfx-top= 200 kN-m; Mfx-bottom= 300 kN-m. This example was tested using the CSA

S16-14 steel frame design code. The design capacities are compared with

Handbook of Steel Construction (9th Edition) results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

2000 kN

Mxf = 200 kN-m

3.7 m

W310x118

Mxf = 300 kN-m

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

200,000 MPa

0.3

76,923.08 MPa

Section A-A

Loading

Design Properties

Cf

= 2000 kN

Mfx-top

= 200 kN-m

Mfx-bottom = 300 kN-m

fy = 345 MPa

Section compactness check (compression & bending)

Member compression capacity

Member bending capacity with no mid-span loading

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from Example 1 on page 4-114 of the Hand Book

of Steel Construction to CSA S16-01 published by the Canadian Institute of Steel

Construction.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Class 2

Class 2

0.00%

3849.5

3849.5

0.00%

(kN-m)

605.5

605.5

0.00%

Output Parameter

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

fy = 345 MPa

E = 200,000 MPa

G = 76923.08 MPa

Section: W310x118

Ag = 15000 mm2

r33 = 135.4006 mm, r22 = 77.5457 mm

I22 = 90,200,000 mm4

Z33 = 1,950,000 mm3

J = 1,600,000 mm4

=

Cw 1.966 1012 mm 6

ro 2 = xo 2 + yo 2 + r22 2 + r332 = 02 + 02 + 77.5457 2 + 135.40062

ro 2 = 24346.658 mm 2

Member:

lz= le33 = le22 = 3700 mm (unbraced length)

kz=k33 = k22 =1.0

=0.9

Loadings:

C f = 2000 kN

=

Ma M

=

200 kN-m

xf ,top

=

Mb M

=

300 kN-m

xf ,bottom

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

Cl .1=

145

=

Fy

145

= 7.81

345

Cl .2=

170

=

Fy

170

= 9.15

345

bf

307

=

= 8.21

2t f 2 18.7

Cl .1 < < Cl .2 ,

Flange is Class 2.

Localized Buckling for Web:

=

C y f=

y Ag

=

Cl .1

=

345 15000

= 5175 kN

1000

C f 1100

1100

2000

=

1 0.39 =

1 0.39

50.30

Cy

5175

Fy

345

h 276.6

=

= 23.24

tw 11.9

< Cl .1 ,

Web is Class 1.

Section is Class 2

Flexural Buckling

n = 1.34 (wide flange section)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

= max( 22 , 33 ) = 22 =

Cr = Ag Fy 1 +

2n

1

n

k22l22

r22

fy

E

ETABS

0

1.0 3700

345

= 0.6308

77.5457 200000

21.34

1

1.34

Cr = 3489.5 kN

=

Fex

2 E

2 2 105

=

=

2643MPa

2

2

k33l33

1 3700

135.4006

r33

2 E

2 2 105

=

Fey =

=

867 MPa

2

2

k22l22

1 3700

77.5457

r22

2 EC

1

w

=

+ GJ

Fez

2

A r2

( k z lz )

go

2 2 105 1.966 1012

1

=

+ 76923.08 1.6 106

Fez

2

15000 24347

(1 3700 )

F

=

min ( Fex , Fey , Fez=

867 MPa

) F=

e

ey

Cr = Ag Fe 1 + 2 n

1

n

1

1.34

Section Bending Capacity:

M p 33= Z 33 Fy = 1,950, 000 345= 672.75 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2

M

M

=

1.75 + 1.05 a + 0.3 a 2.5

2

Mb

Mb

2

200

200

=

1.75 + 1.05

2

+ 0.3

= 2.583 2.5

300

300

So 2 =2.5

2

E

2

=

Mu

EI 22GJ +

I 22Cw

l22

l22

=

Mu

2.5

3700

2 105

7

12

2 105 9.02 107 76923.08 1.6 106 +

9.02 10 1.966 10

3700

M u = 3163.117 kN-m

Since M u > 0.67 M p 33

M p 33

M r=

1.15M p 33 1 0.28

M p 33

33

Mu

672.75

0.9 672.75

M r 33 = 1.15 0.9 672.75 1 0.28

3163.117

=

M r 33 654.830 605.475

M r 33 = 605.5 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example considering in-plane

behavior only.

A continuous column is subjected to factored load N = 210 kN and My,Ed = 43

kN-m. This example was tested using the Eurocode 3-2005 steel frame design

code. The design capacities are compared with independent hand calculated

results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

NEd

My,Ed

L

A

Section A-A

L = 3.5 m

Material Properties

E = 210x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 80770 MPa

Loading

N = 210 kN

My,Ed = 43 kN-m

Design Properties

fy = 235 MPa

Section: IPE 200

Section compactness check (beam-column)

Member interaction capacities, D/C, Method 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-EC-3-2005.pdf, which is

available through the program Help menu. This example was taken from "New

design rules in EN 1993-1-1 for member stability," Worked example 1 in section

5.2.1, page 151.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Class 1

Class 1

0.00%

D/CAxial

0.334

0.334

0.00%

D/CBending

0.649

0.646

0.46%

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: S235

fy = 235 MPa

E = 210,000 MPa

G = 80,770 MPa

Section: IPE 200

A = 2848 mm2

h = 200 mm, bf = 100 mm, tf = 8.5 mm, tw = 5.6 mm, r = 12 mm

hw = h 2t f = 200 2 85 = 183mm

=

c

Iyy

b f tw 2r 100 5.6 2 12

=

= 35.2 mm

2

2

= 19,430,000 mm4

Wpl,y = 220,600 mm3

Member:

Lyy = Lzz = 3,500 mm (unbraced length)

M 0 =

1

M1 =

1

y = 0.21

Loadings:

N Ed = 210, 000 N

M Ed , y ,Left = 0 N-m

M Ed , y ,Right = 43000 N-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Section Compactness:

235

=

fy

1 =

235

= 1

235

N Ed

1

1

2 2htw f y

1

210, 000

=

1

0.6737

2 2 200 5.6 235

For the tip in compression under combined bending and compression

cl .1 =

e =

9

9 1

=

= 13.36

0.6737

c 35.2

=

= 4.14

tf

8.5

=

e 4.14 < =

13.36

cl .1

So Flange is Class 1 in combined bending and compression

Localized Buckling for Web:

> 0.5, so

=

cl .1

e =

396

396 1

=

= 51.05 for combined bending & compression

13 1 13 0.6737 1

d 183

=

= 28.39

tw 5.6

=

e 32.68 < =

cl .1 51.05

So Web is Class 1 in combined bending and compression

Since Flange and Web are Class 1, Section is Class 1.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

N c , Rk = Af y = 2.848 103 235 106 = 669 kN

=

N cr ,22

=

= 3287 kN

3.52

L2

M pl , y , Rk= W pl , y f y= 220.6 106 235 106= 51.8 kN-m

Member Bending & Compression Capacity with Buckling

Compression Buckling Factors

=

y

Af y

=

N cr , y

= 0.451

3287 103

2

2

0.5 1 + 0.21 ( 0.451 0.2 ) + 0.451

0.628

=

y 0.5 1 + y ( y 0.2 ) + =

=

y

1

1

=

y

=

= 0.939 1

+ 2 2 0.628 + 0.6282 0.4512

y

y

Auxiliary Terms

N Ed

210

1

N cr , y

3287

=

y

=

=

0.996

N Ed

210

1 0.939

1 y

3287

N cr , y

1

=

wy

W pl , y 220.6 106

=

= 1.135 1.5

Wel , y 194.3 106

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Cmo Factor

=

y

M Ed , y ,right

0

0

=

=

M Ed , y ,left 43 103

Cmy=

0.79 + 0.21 y + 0.36 ( y 0.33)

,0

N Ed

N cr , y

210

0.79 + 0.21 0 + 0.36 ( 0 0.33)

Cmy =

= 0.782

,0

3287

0.782 because no LTB is likely to occur.

=

Cmy C=

my ,0

Elastic-Plastic Bending Resistance

Because LTB is prevented, bLT = 0 so aLT = 0

1.6

N

1.6

1 + ( wy 1) 2

C yy =

Cmy 2 22

Cmy 2 y 2 Ed bLT

N c , Rk

wy

wy

M1

1.6

1.6

210 10

0.7822 0.451

0.7822 0.4512

1 + (1.135 1) 2

0

C yy =

3

1.135

669 10

1.135

1.0

C yy = 1.061

D

=

/ CAxial

Wel , y

W pl , y

N Ed

=

N c , Rk

M1

194.3 106

= 0.881

220.6 106

210 103

669 103

0.939

1

D / CAxial = 0.334

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

D / CBending

Cmy M Ed , y ,right

=

y

1 N Ed C M pl , y , Rk

N cr , y yy M 1

ETABS

0

3

0.782 43 10

=

0.996

3

3

210 10

51.8 10

1.061

1

3

3287 10

1

D / CBending = 0.646

D / CTotal = 0.980

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE SECTION UNDER BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

A beam is subjected to factored load N = 1050 kN. This example was tested

using the Eurocode 3-2005 steel frame design code. The design capacities are

compared with independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

NEd

A

L/2

L/2

Section A-A

L = 1.4 m

Material Properties

E = 210x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 80770 MPa

Loading

N =

1050 kN

Design Properties

fy = 275 MPa

Section: 406x178x74 UB

Section compactness (beam)

Section shear capacity

Section bending capacity with shear reduction

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-EC-3-2005.pdf, which is

available through the program Help menu. Examples were taken from Example

6.5 on pp. 53-55 from the book Designers Guide to EN1993-1-1 by R.S.

Narayanan & A. Beeby.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Class 1

Class 1

0.00%

689.2

689.2

0.00%

412.8

412.8

0.00%

386.8

386.8

0.00%

Vpl,Rd (kN)

Section Bending Resistance,

Mc,y,Rd (kN-m)

Section Shear-Reduced Bending

Resistance, Mv,y,Rd (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: S275 Steel

fy = 275 MPa

E = 210000 MPa

Section: 406x178x74 UB

A = 9450 mm2

b = 179.5 mm, tf = 16 mm, h = 412.8 mm, tw = 9.5 mm, r = 10.2 mm

hw = h 2t f = 412.8 2 16 = 380.8 mm

d = h 2 ( t f + r ) = 412.8 2 (16 + 10.2 ) = 360.4 mm

=

c

=

= 74.8 mm

2

2

Other:

M 0 = 1.0

= 1.2

Loadings:

N Ed = 0 kN

N = 1050 kN @ mid-span

VEd = 525 kN

M Ed = 367.5 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Section Compactness:

=

235

=

fy

235

= 0.924

275

cl .1 = 9 = 9 0.924 = 8.32 for pure compression

e =

c 74.8

=

= 4.68

tf

16

=

e 4.68 < =

8.32

cl .1

So Flange is Class 1 in pure compression

Localized Buckling for Web:

cl .1= 72= 72 0.924= 66.56 for pure bending

e =

d 360.4

=

= 37.94

9.5

tw

=

e 37.94 < =

cl .1 66.56

So Web is Class 1 in pure bending

Since Flange & Web are Class 1, Section is Class 1.

Section Shear Capacity

Av min = h wtw = 1.2 380.8 9.5 = 4341mm 2

=

Av 4021.2 mm 2 < Av min

So Av = 4341mm 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

=

V pl , Rd

ETABS

0

Av f y 4341 275

=

= 689, 245 N

M 0 3 1.0 3

V pl , Rd = 689.2 kN

M

=

c , y , Rd

=

= 412, 775, 000 N-mm

M0

1

M c , y , Rd = 412.8 kN-m

2

2VEd

2 525 2

=

1=

1= 0.27

V pl , Rd

689.2

=

M v , y , Rd

fy

Aw 2 275

0.27 3617.62

1,501,

000

W

4 9.5

M 0 pl , y 4tw 1.0

M v , y , Rd = 386.8 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE SECTION UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

A continuous beam-column is subjected to factored axial load P = 1400 kN and

major-axis bending moment M = 200 kN-m. This example was tested using the

Eurocode 3-2005 steel frame design code. The design capacities are compared

with independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

M

P

Section A-A

L = 0.4 m

Material Properties

E = 210x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 80769 MPa

Loading

Design Properties

fy = 235 MPa

P = 1400 kN

Section: 457x191x98 UB

M = 200 kN-m

Section compactness check (beam-column)

Section compression capacity

Section bending capacity with compression reduction

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-EC-3-2005.pdf, which is also

available through the program Help menu. Examples were taken from Example

6.6 on pp. 57-59 from the book Designers Guide to EN1993-1-1 by R.S.

Narayanan & A. Beeby.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Class 2

Class 2

0.00%

2937.5

2937.5

0.00%

524.1

524.5

-0.08%

341.9

342.2

Npl,Rd (kN)

Section Plastic Bending Resistance,

Mpl,y,Rd (kN-m)

Section Reduced Bending Resistance,

Mn,y,Rd (kN-m)

-0.09%

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: S275 Steel

E = 210000 MPa

fy = 235 MPa

Section: 457x191x98 UB

A = 12,500 mm2

b = 192.8 mm, tf = 19.6 mm, h = 467.2 mm, tw = 11.4 mm, r = 10.2 mm

d = h 2 ( t f + r ) = 467.2 2 (19.6 + 10.2 ) = 407.6 mm

=

c

=

= 80.5 mm

2

2

Other:

M 0 =

1.0

Loadings:

Results in the following internal forces:

N Ed = 1400 kN

M = 200 kN-m

Section Compactness:

=

235

=

fy

235

= 1

235

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

1 =

=

N Ed

1

1

2 2htw f y

ETABS

0

1

1, 400, 000

=

1

2.7818 > 1, so

2 2 467.2 11.4 235

=1.0

Localized Buckling for Flange:

For the tip in compression under combined bending & compression

cl .1 =

e =

9 9 1

=

= 9

1

c 80.5

=

= 4.11

t f 19.6

=

e 4.11 < =

9

cl .1

So Flange is Class 1 in combined bending and compression

Localized Buckling for Web:

> 0.5, so

=

cl .1

e =

396

396 1

=

= 33.00 for combined bending & compression

13 1 13 1 1

d 407.6

=

= 35.75

tw 11.4

=

e 35.75 > =

cl .1 33.00

=

cl .2

456

456 1

=

= 38.00

13 1 13 1 1

=

e 35.75 <

=

38.00

cl .2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Section Compression Capacity

N pl=

, Rd

Af y 12,500 235

=

M 0

1

N pl , Rd = 2937.5 kN

M=

pl , y , Rd

=

M 0

1

M pl , y , Rd = 524.5 kN-m

Axial Reduction

N Ed =

1400kN > 0.25 N pl , Rd =

0.25 2937.5 =

734.4 kN

N Ed =

1400kN > 0.5

hwtw f y

M 0

=

0.5

=

573.3kN

1

=

n

N Ed

1400

=

= 0.48

N pl , Rd 2937.5

=

= 0.40

12,500

A

1 n

1 0.48

M N=

M pl , y , Rd

= 524.5

, y , Rd

1 0.5a

1 0.5 0.4

=

a

M N , y , Rd = 342.2 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

A continuous column is subjected to factored load N = 1 kN. This example was

tested using the Indian IS 800:2007 steel frame design code. The design

capacities are compared with independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

NEd

L

A

Section A-A

L = 3m

Material Properties

E = 200x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 76923 MPa

Loading

N = 1 kN

Design Properties

fy = 250 MPa

fu = 410 MPa

Section: ISMB 350

Section compactness check (column)

Member compression capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-IS-800-2007.pdf, which is

available through the program Help menu. The example was taken from

Example 9.2 on pp. 765-766 in Design of Steel Structures by N. Subramanian.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Plastic

Plastic

0.00%

733.85

734.07

-0.03%

Output Parameter

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: Fe 250

E = 200,000 MPa

fy = 250 MPa

Section: ISMB 350

A = 6670 mm2

b = 140 mm, tf = 14.2 mm, d = 350 mm, tw = 8.1 mm, r = 1.8 mm

ry = 28.4 mm, rz = 143 mm

Member:

KLy = KLz = 3,000 mm (unbraced length)

M 0 =

1.1

Loadings:

N Ed = 1 kN

Section Compactness:

=

250

=

fy

250

= 1

250

=

8.4= 8.4 =

1 8.4

p

e =

b

70

=

= 4.93

t f 14.2

=

e 4.93 <

=

8.40

p

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

e =

d 318

=

= 39.26

tw 8.1

=

e 39.26 < =

s 42

So Web is Plastic in compression

Since Flange & Web are Plastic, Section is Plastic.

Member Compression Capacity:

Non-Dimensional Slenderness Ratio:

h 350

=

= 2.5 > 1.2

b f 140

and

=

t f 14.2 mm < 40 mm

So we should use the Buckling Curve a for the z-z axis and Buckling Curve b

for the y-y axis (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7).

Z-Z Axis Parameters:

For buckling curve a, =0.21 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)

Euler Buckling Stress:

=

f cc

=

z

fy

=

f cc

2 E

2 200, 000

=

=

4485 MPa

2

2

K z Lz

3, 000

143

rz

250

= 0.2361

4485

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

=

0.5 1 + ( 0.2 ) + =

2 0.5 1 + 0.21( 0.2361 0.2 ) + 0.23612

=0.532

Stress Reduction

Factor:

=

1

1

=

= 0.9920

2

2

+

0.532 + 0.5322 0.23612

fy

250

f cd , z =

=

0.992

=

255.5 MPa

M 0

1.1

Y-Y Axis Parameters:

For buckling curve b, =0.34 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)

Euler Buckling Stress:

=

f cc

=

y

fy

=

f cc

2 E

2 200, 000

=

=

177 MPa

2

2

K z Lz

3, 000

28.4

rz

250

= 1.189

177

=

0.5 1 + ( 0.2 ) + =

2 0.5 1 + 0.34 (1.189 0.2 ) + 1.1892

=1.375

Stress Reduction

Factor:

=

1

1

=

= 0.4842

2

2

+

1.375 + 1.3752 1.1892

fy

250

f cd , y =

=

=

0.4842

110.1MPa Governs

M 0

1.1

=

Pd Af=

6670 110.1

cd , y

Pd = 734.07 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

A continuous beam is subjected to factored distributed load w = 48.74 kN/m.

This example was tested using the Indian IS 800:2007 steel frame design code.

The design capacities are compared with independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Section A-A

L1

L2

L3

A

L1 = 4.9 m

Material Properties

E = 200x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 76923 MPa

L2 = 6 m

Loading

w = 48.74 kN/m

L3 = 4.9 m

Design Properties

fy = 250 MPa

Section: ISLB 500

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Section compactness check (beam)

Section shear capacity

Member bending capacity

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-IS-800-2007.pdf, which is

available through the program Help menu. The example was taken from

Example 10.8 on pp. 897-901 in Design of Steel Structures by N. Subramanian.

The torsional constant, It, is calculated by the program as a slightly different

value, which accounts for the percent different in section bending resistance.

Output Parameter

Compactness

Section Bending Resistance,

Md(LTB) (kN-m)

Section Shear Resistance,

Vd (kN)

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Plastic

Plastic

0.00%

157.70

157.93

0.14%

603.59

603.59

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: Fe 250

E = 200,000 MPa

G = 76,923 MPa

fy = 250 MPa

Section: ISLB 500

(Note: In ETABS, the section is not available with original example properties,

including fillet properties. A similar cross-section with fillet r = 0 was used, with

similar results, shown below.)

A = 9550 mm2

h = 500 mm, bf = 180 mm, tf = 14.1 mm, tw = 9.2 mm

=

b

b f 180

=

= 90 mm

2

2

Iz = 385,790,000 mm4, Iy = 10,639,000.2 mm4

Zez = 1,543,160 mm3, Zpz = 1,543,200 mm3

ry = 33.4 mm

Member:

Lleft = 4.9 m

Lcenter = 6 m (governs)

Lright = 4.9 m

KLy = KLz = 6,000 mm (unbraced length)

M 0 =

1.1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Loadings:

N Ed = 0 kN

= 48.75 kN/m

Section Compactness:

=

250

=

fy

250

= 1

250

Localized Buckling for Flange:

=

9.4= 9.4 =

1 9.4

p

e =

b

90

=

= 6.38

t f 14.1

=

e 6.38 <

=

9.40

p

So Flange is Plastic in pure bending

Localized Buckling for Web:

=

p

e =

84

84 1

=

= 84

(1 + r1 ) (1 + 0)

d 471.8

=

= 51.28

tw

9.2

=

e 51.28 <=

p 84.00

Since Flange & Web are Class 1, Section is Plastic.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Vd=

fy

M 0 3

htw=

250

500 9.2

1.1 3

Vd = 603.59 kN

h f =h t f =500 14.1 =485.9

3

bi ti 3 2b f t f

d t 3 2 180 14.13 485.9 9.23

I t =

=

+ iw =

+

=4.63 105 mm 4

3

3

3

3

3

From Roark & Young, 5th Ed., 1975, Table 21, Item 7, pg.302

h f 2t1t2b13b23

485.92 14.1 14.1 1803 1803

=

Iw

=

=

8.089 1011 mm 6

3

3

3

3

12 t1b1 + t2b2

12 14.2 180 + 14.2 180

2 EI y

2 EI w

GI

+

t

2

2

( KL )

( KL )

=

M cr C1

M cr 1.0

=

2 200, 000 8.089 1011

76,923

462,508

+

2

2

( 6, 000 )

( 6, 000 )

M cr = 215,936,919.3 N-mm

LT =

0.21

b =

1.0

=

LT

b Z pz f y

=

M cr

= 1.337

215,936,919.3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2

0.5 1 + 0.21 (1.337 0.2 ) + 1.337 2

=

LT 0.5 1 + LT ( LT 0.2 ) + LT

=

LT =

1.5127

=

LT

LT

=

=

fbd

1

LT + LT 2 LT 2

1.0

= 0.450 1.0

1.5127 + 1.5127 2 1.337 2

LT f y 0.450 250

=

= 102.3MPa

M 0

1.1

M d , LTB

= Z pz fbd= 1543.2 103 102.3

= 157,925, 037.7 N-mm

M d , LTB = 157.93kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BIAXIAL BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

In this example a beam-column is subjected factored distributed load N = 2500

kN, Mz = 350 kN-m, and My = 100 kN-m. The element is moment-resisting in

the z-direction and pinned in the y-direction. This example was tested using the

Indian IS 800:2007 steel frame design code. The design capacities are compared

with independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Y-Axis

Z-Axis

Y-Y

My,top

Mz,top

Z-Z

L

N

A

A

Mz,bot

My,bot

Section A-A

L=4m

Material Properties

E = 200x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 76923.08 MPa

Loading

N = 2500 kN

Mz,top = 350 kN-m

Mz,bot = -350 kN-m

My,top = 100 kN-m

My,bot = 0

Design Properties

fy = 250 MPa

Section: W310x310x226

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Section Compactness Check (Beam-Column)

Section Compression Capacity

Section Shear Capacity for Major & Minor Axes

Section Bending Capacity for Major & Minor Axes

Member Compression Capacity for Major & Minor Axes

Member Bending Capacity for Major & Minor Axes

Interaction Capacity, D/C, for Major & Minor Axes

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-IS-800-2007.pdf, which is also

available through the program Help menu. The example was taken from

Example 13.2 on pp. 1101-1106 in Design of Steel Structures by N.

Subramanian.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Plastic

Plastic

0.00%

6520

6520

0.00%

6511

6511

0.00%

Compactness

Plastic Compression Resistance,

Nd (kN)

Buckling Resistance in Compression,

Pdz (kN)

Buckling Resistance in Compression,

Pdy (kN)

Section Bending Resistance,

Mdz (kN-m)

Section Bending Resistance,

Mdy (kN-m)

Buckling Resistance in Bending,

MdLTB (kN-m)

Section Shear Resistance,

Vdy (kN)

Section Shear Resistance,

Vdz (kN)

5295

5295

0.00%

897.46

897.46

0.00%

325.65

325.65

0.00%

886.84

886.84

0.00%

1009.2

1009.2

0.00%

2961.6

2961.6

0.00%

1.050

1.050

0.00%

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: Fe 410

E = 200,000 MPa

G = 76,923.08 MPa

fy = 250 MPa

Section: W310x310x226

A = 28,687.7 mm2

bf = 317 mm, tf = 35.6 mm, h = 348 mm, tw = 22.1 mm, r = 0 mm

=

b

b f 317

=

= 158.5 mm ,

2

2

Iz = 592,124,221 mm4, Iy = 189,255,388.9 mm4

rz = 143.668 mm, ry = 81.222 mm

Zez = 3,403,012. 8 mm3, Zey = 1,194,040.3 mm3

Zpz = 3,948,812.3 mm3, Zpy = 1,822,502.2 mm3

It = 10,658,941.4 mm6, Iw = 4.611 1012 mm6

Member:

Ly = Lz = 4,000 mm (unbraced length)

M 0 = 1.1

Loadings:

P = 2500 kN

Vz = 25 kN

Vy = 175 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

=

M z 1 350 kN m

M z 2 =

350 kN m

=

M y 1 100 kN m

M=

0 kN m

y 2

Section Compactness:

=

r1

=

fy

=

250

250

= 1

250

P

2,500, 000

=

= 2.01676

fy

2.5

246.8 22.1

dtw

1.1

mo

=

e

b 158.5

=

= 4.45

tf

35.6

So Flange is Plastic in pure bending

Localized Buckling for Web:

=

p

=

e

84

84 1

=

= 27.84

(1 + r1 ) (1 + 2.01676)

d 246.8

=

= 11.20

tw

22.1

So Web is Plastic in bending & compression

Section is Plastic.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Ag f y 28687.7 250

=

1.1

M0

Nd

=

N d = 6520 kN

For major z-z axis

VPz

=

fy

M0

250

Avz

=

7690.8

3

1.1 3

VPz = 1009.2 kN

Avy =

2b f t f =

2 317 35.6 =

22,570.4 mm 2

=

VPy

fy

M0

250

=

Avy

22570.4

3

1.1 3

VPy = 2961.6 kN

For major z-z axis

M dz =

=

=

M0

1.1

M0

1.1

=

M dz 897.46 kN m 933.54 kN m

=

M dz 897.46 kN m

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

=

=

1.1

1.1

M0

M0

=

M dy 414.21 kN m 325.65 kN m

M dy =

=

M dy 325.65 kN m

For major z-z axis

Vz =

25 kN < 0.6VPz =

0.6 1009.2 =

605.5 kN No shear reduction is needed.

Vy =

175 kN < 0.6VPy =

0.6 2961.6 =

1777 kN No shear reduction is needed.

=

n

P 2500

=

= 0.383

N d 6520

M ndz = 1.11M dz (1 n ) = 1.11 897.46 (1 0.383) M dz

=

M ndz 614.2 kN m < 897.46 kN m

For minor y-y axis, since n > 0.2

M ndy = 1.56 M dy (1 n )( n + 0.6 ) = 1.56 325.65 (1 0.383)( 0.383 + 0.6 )

=

M ndy 308.0 kN m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Non-Dimensional Slenderness Ratio:

h 348

=

= 1.1 < 1.2

b f 317

and

=

t f 35.6 mm < 40 mm

So we should use the Buckling Curve b for the z-z axis and Buckling Curve c for the

y-y axis (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7).

Z-Z Axis Parameters:

For buckling curve b, = 0.34 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)

K z = 0.65

K z Lz =0.65 4000 =2600 mm,

Euler Buckling Stress:

=

f cr , z

=

z

fy

=

f cr , z

K z Lz

2600

=

=18.097

rz

143.668

2E

2 200, 000

=

=

6027 MPa

2

2

K z Lz

(18.097 )

rz

250

= 0.2037

6022

z = 0.5214

Stress Reduction

Factor: z

=

f cd , z=

fy

M0

= 0.9987

1

1

=

= 0.9987

2

2

z + z z

0.5214 + 0.52142 0.2037 2

250

= 226.978 MPa

1.1

=

Pdz f=

226.978 28, 687.7

cd , z Ag

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Pdz = 6511 kN

For buckling curve c, = 0.49 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)

K y = 1.00

K y Ly =

1 4000 =

4000 mm,

=

f cr , y

=

y

fy

=

f cr , y

K y Ly

ry

4000

=

=

49.25

81.222

2E

2 200, 000

=

=

813.88 MPa

2

2

49.25

K y Ly

(

)

ry

250

= 0.5542

813.88

y = 0.7404

Stress Reduction

Factor: y

=

f cd , y=

fy

M0

= 0.8122

1

1

=

= 0.8122

2

2

0.7404 + 0.74042 0.55422

y + y y

250

= 184.584 MPa

1.1

=

Pdy f=

184.584 28, 687.7

cd , y Ag

Pdy = 5295 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

C1 = 2.7 (Program Calculation from AISC equation, where C1 < 2.7 )

2 EI y

2 EI w

+

GI

t

2

2

( KL )

( KL )

=

M cr C1

M cr 2.7

=

( 4, 000 )

( 4, 000 )

=

M cr 15,374, 789,309 N mm

LT = 0.21

b = 1.0

LT

=

b Z pz f y

=

M cr

1 3,948,812.3 250

= 0.2534

15,374, 789,309

LT = 0.5377

LT

=

LT + LT 2 + LT 2

1.0

=

LT

= 0.9882 1.0

0.5377 + 0.5377 2 + 0.25342

=

fbd

LT f y 0.9882 250

=

= 224.58 MPa

M0

1.1

=

M dLTB 886.84 kN m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Member Bending & Compression Capacity with Buckling

Z-Z Axis

=

nz

P 2500

=

= 0.3839

Pdz 6511

=

K z 1.0014 1.3072 so K z = 1.0014

z =

M 2 350

=

= 1

350

M1

Cmz

= 0.6 + 0.4

= 0.6 + 0.4 =

1 0.2 > 0.4 so Cmz

= 0.4

Y-Y Axis

=

ny

P 2500

=

= 0.4721

Pdy 5295

=

K y 1.167 1.378 so K y = 1.167

=

y

M2

0

= = 0

M 1 100

Cmy = 0.6 + 0.4 = 0.6 + 0.4 0= 0.6 > 0.4 so Cmy = 0.6

Lateral-Torsional Buckling

CmLT = 0.4

K LT = 1

0.1LT n y

CmLT 0.25

0.1n y

CmLT 0.25

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

K LT = 1

ETABS

0

0.1 0.4721

= 0.920 1

= 0.831

0.4 0.25

0.4 0.25

K LT = 0.920

D P K y Cmy M y K LT M z 2500 1.167 0.6 100 0.920 350

=+

+

= +

+

C Pdy

M dy

M dLTB

5295

325.65

886.84

D

= 0.472 + 0.215 + 0.363

C

D

= 1.050 (Governs)

C

D P 0.6 K y Cmy M y K z Cmz M z 2500 0.6 1.167 0.6 100 1.0014 0.4 350

=

+

+

=+

+

C Pdz

M dy

M dLTB

6511

325.65

886.84

D

= 0.384 + 0.129 + 0.158

C

D

= 0.671

C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The design flexural strengths are checked for the beam shown below. The beam

is loaded with a uniform load of 6.5 kN/m (D) and 11 kN/m (L). The flexural

moment capacity is checked for three unsupported lengths in the weak direction,

Lb = 1.75 m, 6 m and 12 m.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

W460x74

E = 205,000 MPa

Fy = 345 MPa

Loading

w = 6.5 kN/m (D)

w = 11.0 kN/m (L)

Geometry

Span, L = 12m

Section Compactness Check (Bending)

Member Bending Capacities

Unsupported length factors

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are comparing with the results of ETABS.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compact

Compact

0.00%

1.004

1.002

0.20%

515.43

515.43

0.00%

Cb ( L b =4m)

1.015

1.014

0.10%

b M

394.8

394.2

0.15%

1.136

1.136

0.00%

113.47

113.45

0.17%

Output Parameter

Compactness

Cb ( L b =1.75m)

b M

( L b =1.75m) (kN-m)

( L b =4m) (kN-m)

Cb ( L b =12m)

b M

( L b =12m) (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

E = 205,000 MPa, Fy = 345 MPa

Section: W460x74

bf = 191 mm, tf = 14.5 mm, d = 457 mm, tw = 9 mm

h d 2 t f 4 5 7 2 1 4 .5 4 2 8 m m

h 0 d t f 4 5 7 1 4 .5 4 4 2 .5 m m

Iy =1670 cm4, ry = 42 mm, Cw = 824296.4 cm6, J = 51.6 cm4

I yC w

rts

1 6 7 0 8 2 4 2 9 6 .4

S 33

R m 1 .0

5 0 .4 5 m m

1 4 5 7 .3

Other:

c = 1.0

L = 12 m

Loadings:

wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 1.2(6.5) + 1.6(11) = 25.4 kN/m

M

wu L

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

bf

2t f

191

2 1 4 .5

6 .5 8 6

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

p 0 .3 8

p

0 .3 8

2 0 5, 0 0 0

Fy

ETABS

0

9 .2 6 3

345

Flange is Compact.

Localized Buckling for Web:

428

tw

p 3 .7 6

p

4 7 .5 6

3 .7 6

2 0 5, 0 0 0

Fy

9 1 .6 5 4

345

Web is Compact.

Section is Compact.

Section Bending Capacity:

M

F y Z 3 3 3 4 5 1 6 6 0 5 7 2 .7 k N -m

Critical Lengths:

L p 1 .7 6 r y

L r 1 .9 5 rts

2 0 5, 0 0 0

1 .7 6 4 2

Fy

Jc

0 .7 F y

S 33 ho

L r 1 .9 5 5 0 .4 5

1 8 0 1 .9 m m 1 .8 m

345

0 .7 F y S 3 3 h o

1 6 .7 6

Jc

E

2 0 5, 0 0 0

5 1 .6 1

0 .7 3 4 5

1 4 5 7 .3 4 4 .2 5

0 .7 3 4 5 1 4 5 7 .3 4 4 .8

1 6 .7 6

5 1 .6 1

2 0 5, 0 0 0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

L r 5 .2 5 m

For the lateral-torsional buckling limit state, the non-uniform moment magnification factor is

calculated using the following equation:

12 . 5 M

Cb

2 .5 M

max

3M

R m 3 .0

max

4M

3M

Eqn. 1

moment.

The required moments for Eqn. 1 can be calculated as a percentage of the maximum mid-span

moment. Since the loading is uniform and the resulting moment is symmetric:

M

1 Lb

4 L

M

m ax

1 .0 0

2

1 Lb

1 1 .7 5

1

0 .9 9 5

1

4 L

4 12

1 2 .5 1 .0 0

Cb

2 .5 1 .0 0 3 0 .9 9 5 4 1 .0 0 3 0 .9 9 5

C b 1 .0 0 2

Lb L p ,

5 7 2 .7 k N -m

b M

0 .9 5 7 2 .7

b M

5 1 5 .4 3 k N -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

m ax

1 .0 0

2

1 Lb

1 4

0 .9 7 2

1

4 L

4 12

1 2 .5 1 .0 0

Cb

2 .5 1 .0 0 3 0 .9 7 2 4 1 .0 0 3 0 .9 7 2

C b 1 .0 1 4

L p Lb Lr

C b M

Lb L p

0 . 7 F y S 33

L L

p

r

4 .0 0 1 .8 0

1 .0 1 4 5 7 2 .7 5 7 2 .7 0 .7 0 .3 4 5 1 4 5 7 .3

5 .2 5 1 .8 0

b M

0 .9 4 3 7 .9 7

b M

3 9 4 .2 k N -m

4 3 7 .9 7 k N -m

M

m ax

1 .0 0

2

Cb

1 Lb

1 12

1

0 .7 5 0

1

4 L

4 12

1 2 .5 1 .0 0

2 .5 1 .0 0 3 0 .7 5 0 4 1 .0 0 3 0 .7 5 0

1 .0 0

C b 1 .1 3 6

Lb Lr ,

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Lb

1 0 .0 7 8

S 3 3 h o rts

C b E

2

Fcr

Fcr

Lb

rts

Jc

1 .1 3 6

ETABS

0

2 0 5, 0 0 0

12000

5 0 .4 5

1 0 .0 7 8

F cr S 33 M

8 6 .5 1 4 5 7 .3 1 2 6 .0 5 6 k N -m

5 1 .6 1

12000

1 4 5 7 .3 4 4 .2 5 5 0 .4 5

8 6 .5 M P a

b M

0 .9 1 2 6 .0 5 6

b M

1 1 3 .4 5 k N -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

BUILT UP WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

A demand capacity ratio is calculated for the built-up, ASTM A572 grade 50,

column shown below. An axial load of 300 kips (D) and 900 kips (L) is applied to

a simply supported column with a height of 5m.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Section compactness check (compression)

Warping constant calculation, Cw

Member compression capacity with slenderness reduction

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with the results from

ETABS.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Slender

Slender

0.00%

cPn (kN)

2056.7

2056.7

0.00 %

Output Parameter

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

E = 205,000 MPa, Fy =345 MPa

Section: Built-Up Wide Flange

d = 432 mm, bf = 203 mm, tf = 25 mm, h = 382 mm, tw = 7 in.

Ignoring fillet welds:

A = 2(203)(25) + (382)(7) = 128.24 cm2

Iy

2 ( 2 5 )( 2 0 3)

Iy

3 4 .8 6 7 E 0 6

3 4 .8 6 7 E 0 6 m m

12

5 2 .1 m m .

12824

Ad

Ix

C w 1 4 4 3 4 6 3 .1 c m

J

(3 8 2 )(7 )

12

ry

Ix

bt

2 1 6 .1 c m

Member:

K = 1.0 for a pinned-pinned condition

L=5m

Loadings:

Pu = 1.2(300) + 1.6(700) = 1800 kN

Section Compactness:

Check for slender elements using Specification KBC 2009:

-3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

1 0 1 .5

4 .0 6

25

p 0 .3 8

p

2 0 5, 0 0 0

0 .3 8

Fy

9 .2 6 3

345

Flange is Compact.

Localized Buckling for Web:

382

5 4 .5 7

r 1 .4 9

1 .4 9

2 0 5, 0 0 0

Fy

3 6 .3 2

345

Web is Slender.

Section is Slender

Member Compression Capacity:

Elastic Flexural Buckling Stress

Since the unbraced length is the same for both axes, the y-y axis will govern by

inspection.

KLy

1 .0 5 0 0 0

ry

E

2

Fe

9 5 .9 7

5 2 .1

KL

2 0 5, 0 0 0

9 5 .9 7

= 219.68 MPa

Note: Torsional buckling will not govern if KLy > KLz, however, the check is included

here to illustrate the calculation.

-4

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

2 EC w

1

Fe

GJ

2

K z L

Ix I

Fe

ETABS

0

2 0 5 , 0 0 0 1 4 4 3 4 6 3 .1 E 0 6

5000

= 588 MPa > 288.84 MPa

2

1

7 8 8 4 6 .1 5 2 1 6 .1 E 0 4

4 5 3 3 8 3 4 8 6 .7 E 0 4

Fe = 220 MPa

Section Reduction Factors

Since the flange is not slender,

Qs = 1.0

Since the web is slender,

Take f as Fcr with Q = 1.0

E

4 .7 1

4 .7 1

Q Fy

2 0 5, 0 0 0

1 .0 3 4 5

1 1 4 .8

KLy

9 5 .9 7

ry

So

f Fcr

Q 0 .6 5 8

b e 1 .9 2 t

QFy

Fe

F y 1 .0

E

0 .3 4

1

f

b t

b e 1 .9 2 7

1 .0 3 4 5

220

0 .6 5 8

3 4 5 1 7 8 .9 8 M P a

E

b , w h e re b h

f

2 0 5, 0 0 0

0 .3 4

1

1 7 8 .9 8

382 7

2 0 5, 0 0 0

3 5 9 .1 2 m m

1 7 8 .9 8

b e 3 5 9 .1 2 m m 3 8 2 m m

2

A e ff b e t w 2 b f t f 3 5 9 .1 2 7 2 2 0 3 2 5 1 2 6 6 3 .8 4 m m

where Aeff is effective area based on the reduced effective width of the web, be.

-5

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Qa

A e ff

1 2 6 6 3 .8 4

ETABS

0

0 .9 8 7 5

12824

Q Q s Q a 1 .0 0 0 .9 8 7 5 0 .9 8 7 5

Determine whether Specification Equation E7-2 or E7-3 applies

4 .7 1

4 .7 1

Q Fy

2 0 5, 0 0 0

0 .9 8 7 5 3 4 5

1 3 8 .4 7

KLy

9 5 .9 7

ry

When

4 .7 1

E

Q Fy

Fcr

KL

r

Q 0 .6 5 8

Q Fy

Fe

0 .9 8 7 5 3 4 5

220

F y 0 .9 8 7 5 0 .6 5 8

3 4 5 1 7 8 .2 M P a

Pn F c r A g 1 2 8 2 4 1 7 8 .2 2 2 8 5 2 3 6 .8 N

c 0 .9 0

c Pn F c r A g 0 .9 0 2 2 8 5 .2 4 2 0 5 6 .7 k N

> 1800 kN

-6

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE SECTION UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

In this example a continuous beam-column is subjected to factored axial load P =

1400 kN and major-axis bending moment M = 200 kN-m. The beam is

continuously braced to avoid any buckling effects. This example was tested using

the Italian NTC-2008 steel frame design code. The design capacities are

compared with independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

M

P

Section A-A

L = 0.4 m

Material Properties

E = 210x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 80769 MPa

Loading

P = 1400 kN

M = 200 kN-m

Design Properties

fy = 235 MPa

Section: 457x191x98 UB

Section compactness check (beam-column)

Section compression capacity

Section shear capacity

Section bending capacity with compression & shear reductions

Interaction capacity, D/C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-NTC-2008.pdf, which is

available through the program Help menu. Examples were taken from Example

6.6 on pp. 57-59 from the book Designers Guide to EN1993-1-1 by R.S.

Narayanan & A. Beeby.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Class 2

Class 2

0.00%

2797.6

2797.6

0.00%

667.5

667.5

0.00%

499.1

499.1

0.00%

310.8

310.8

0.00%

470.1

470.1

0.00%

0.644

0.644

0.00%

Nc,Rd (kN)

Section Shear Resistance,

Vc,Rd,y (kN)

Section Plastic Bending Resistance,

Mc,y,Rd (kN-m)

Section Bending Resistance Axially

Reduced,

MN,y,Rd (kN-m)

Section Bending Resistance Shear

Reduced,

MV,y,Rd (kN-m)

Interaction Capacity, D/C

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: S275 Steel

E = 210000 MPa

fy = 235 MPa

Section: 457x191x98 UB

A = 12,500 mm2

b = 192.8 mm, tf = 19.6 mm, h = 467.2 mm, tw = 11.4 mm, r = 0 mm

d = h 2 ( t f + r ) = 467.2 2 (19.6 + 0 ) = 428 mm

=

c

b tw 2r 192.8 11.4 2 0

=

= 90.7 mm

2

2

Other:

M 0 =

1.05

Loadings:

M y = 200 kN-m bending load at one end

Results in the following internal forces:

N Ed = 1400 kN

VEd = 500 kN

M y , Ed = 200 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Section Compactness:

235

=

fy

1 =

235

= 1

235

N Ed

1

1

2 2htw f y

1

1, 400, 000

=

1

2.7818 > 1, so

2 2 467.2 11.4 235

=1.0

Localized Buckling for Flange:

For the tip in compression under combined bending & compression

cl .1 =

e =

9 9 1

=

= 9

1

c 90.7

=

= 4.63

t f 19.6

=

e 4.63 < =

9

cl .1

So Flange is Class 1 in combined bending and compression

Localized Buckling for Web:

> 0.5, so

=

cl .1

e =

396

396 1

=

= 33.00 for combined bending & compression

13 1 13 1 1

d 428

=

= 37.54

tw 11.4

=

e 37.54 > =

cl .1 33.00

=

cl .2

456

456 1

=

= 38.00

13 1 13 1 1

=

e 37.54 <

=

38.00

cl .2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Since Web is Class 2, Section is Class 2 in combined bending & compression.

Section Compression Capacity

N=

N pl=

, Rd

c , Rd

Af y 12,500 235

=

M 0

1.05

N c , Rd = 2797.6 kN

AV , y = A 2bt f + t f ( tw + 2r ) = 12,500 2 192.8 19.6 + 19.6 (11.4 + 2 0 )

AV , y = 5,165.7 mm 2

=

Vc , Rd , y

fy

235

=

Avy

5,165.7

M 0 3

1.05 3

Vc , Rd , y = 667.5 kN

=1.0

hw 428

72 235 72 235

37.5 <

72

==

=

=

1.0 235

tw 11.4

fy

So no shear buckling needs to be checked.

Section Bending Capacity

M

=

M=

c , y , Rd

pl , y , Rd

=

M 0

1.05

M c , y , Rd = 499.1kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

V=

500 kN > 0.5 Vc ,=

333.7 kN Shear Reduction is needed

Ed

Rd

Av =htw =467.2 11.4 =4,879.2 mm 2

2

2V

2 500 2

= Ed 1=

1= 0.2482

V

667.5

,

c

Rd

Av 2

0.2482 4879.22

W

2,

230,

000

pl , y

yk

235

4tw

4 11.4

=

M y ,c , Rd

M y ,V , Rd =

M 0

1.05

M V ,r , Rd = 470.1kN-m

with Compression Reduction

=

n

N Ed

1400

=

= 0.50

N pl , Rd 2797.6

=

= 0.40 0.5

A

12,500

1 n

1 0.5

M N=

M pl , y , Rd

= 499.1

, y , Rd

1 0.5a

1 0.5 0.4

=

a

M N , y , Rd = 310.8 kN-m

Section Bending & Compression Capacity

Formula NTC 4.2.39

2

D

=

C

5n

2

M y , Ed M z , Ed

M y , Ed

200

0

0.414

+

=

+

=

= 0.644

310.8

M N , y , Rd

M N , y , Rd M N , z , Rd

D

= 0.644 (Governs)

C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

In this example a continuous beam-column is subjected to factored axial load P =

1400 kN, major-axis bending moment My = 200 kN-m, and a minor axis bending

moment of Mz = 100 kN-m. This example was tested using the Italian NTC-2008

steel frame design code. The design capacities are compared with independent

hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Y-Axis

Z-Axis

Y-Y

My,top

Mz,top

Z-Z

L

P

A

A

Mz,bot

My,bot

Section A-A

L = 0.4 m

Material Properties

E = 210x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 80769 MPa

Loading

P = 1400 kN

Mz,top = 100 kN-m

Mz,bot = -100 kN-m

My,top = 200 kN-m

My,bot = 0

Design Properties

fy = 235 MPa

Section: 457x191x98 UB

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Section compactness check (beam-column)

Section compression capacity

Section shear capacity for major & minor axes

Section bending capacity for major & minor axes

Member compression capacity for major & minor axes

Member bending capacity

Interaction capacity, D/C, for major & minor axes

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-NTC-2008.pdf, which is

available through the program Help menu. Examples were taken from Example

6.6 on pp. 57-59 from the book Designers Guide to EN1993-1-1 by R.S.

Narayanan & A. Beeby.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Class 2

Class 2

0.00%

2,797.6

2,797.6

0.00%

2,797.6

2,797.6

0.00%

2,797.6

2,797.6

0.00%

499.1

499.1

0.00%

84.8

84.8

0.00%

470.1

470.1

0.00%

310.8

310.8

0.00%

82.26

82.26

0.00%

499.095

499.095

0.00%

667.5

667.5

0.00%

984.7

984.7

0.00%

2.044

2.044

0.00%

Nc,Rd (kN)

Buckling Resistance in Compression,

Nbyy,Rd (kN)

Buckling Resistance in Compression,

Nbzz,Rd (kN)

Section Plastic Bending Resistance,

Mc,y,Rd (kN-m)

Section Plastic Bending Resistance,

Mc,z,Rd (kN-m)

Section Bending Resistance Shear Reduced,

MV,y,Rd (kN-m)

Section Bending Resistance Axially Reduced,

MN,y,Rd (kN-m)

Section Bending Resistance Axially Reduced,

MN,z,Rd (kN-m)

Member Bending Resistance,

Mb,Rd (kN-m)

Section Shear Resistance,

Vc,y,Rd (kN)

Section Shear Resistance,

Vc,z,Rd (kN)

Interaction Capacity, D/C

COMPUTER FILE: NTC 2008 EX002

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: S275 Steel

E = 210,000 MPa

G = 80,769 MPa

fy = 235 MPa

Section: 457x191x98 UB

A = 12,500 mm2

b = 192.8 mm, tf = 19.6 mm, h = 467.2 mm, tw = 11.4 mm, r = 0 mm

d = h 2 ( t f + r ) = 467.2 2 (19.6 + 0 ) = 428 mm

=

c

b tw 2r 192.8 11.4 2 0

=

= 90.7 mm

2

2

Wpl,z = 379,000 mm3

ryy = 191.3 mm

rzz = 43.3331 mm

Izz = 23,469,998 mm4

=

I w 1.176 1012 mm 6

IT = 1,210,000 mm4

Member:

L = Lb = Lunbraced = 400 mm

Kyy = 1.0, Kzz = 1.0

Other:

M 0 =

1.05

M1 =

1.05

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Loadings:

M z 1 = 100 kN-m

M z 2 = 100 kN-m

M y 1 = 200 kN-m

M y 2 = 0 kN-m

Results in the following internal forces:

N Ed = 1400 kN

M y , Ed = 200 kN-m

M z , Ed = 100 kN-m

Vy , Ed = 500 kN-m

Vz , Ed = 0 kN-m

Section Compactness:

=

235

=

fy

1 =

235

= 1

235

N Ed

1

1

2 2htw f y

1

1, 400, 000

=

1

2.7818 > 1, so

2 2 467.2 11.4 235

=1.0

Localized Buckling for Flange:

For the tip in compression under combined bending & compression

cl .1 =

9 9 1

=

= 9

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

e =

ETABS

0

c 90.7

=

= 4.63

t f 19.6

=

e 4.63 < =

9

cl .1

So Flange is Class 1 in combined bending and compression

Localized Buckling for Web:

> 0.5, so

=

cl .1

e =

396

396 1

=

= 33.00 for combined bending & compression

13 1 13 1 1

d 428

=

= 37.54

tw 11.4

=

e 37.54 > =

cl .1 33.00

=

cl .2

456

456 1

=

= 38.00

13 1 13 1 1

=

e 37.54 <

=

38.00

cl .2

So Web is Class 2 in combined bending & compression.

Since Web is Class 2, Section is Class 2 in combined bending & compression.

Section Compression Capacity

N=

N pl=

, Rd

c , Rd

Af y 12,500 235

=

M 0

1.05

N c , Rd = 2, 797.6 kN

For major y-y axis

AV , y = A 2bt f + t f ( tw + 2r ) = 12,500 2 192.8 19.6 + 19.6 (11.4 + 2 0 )

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

AV , y = 5,165.7 mm 2

=

Vc , y , Rd

fy

235

=

5,165.7

Avy

M 0 3

1.05 3

Vc , y , Rd = 667.5 kN

AV , z =A hwtw =

12,500 428 11.4 =

7, 620.8 mm 2

=

Vc , z , Rd

fy

235

=

7, 620.8

Avy

M 0 3

1.05 3

Vc , z , Rd = 984.7 kN

=1.0

hw 428

72 235 72 235

==

=

=

37.5 <

72

tw 11.4

fy

1.0 235

So no shear buckling needs to be checked.

Section Bending Capacity

For major y-y axis

M

=

M=

c , y , Rd

pl , y , Rd

=

M 0

1.05

M c , y , Rd = 499.1kN-m

M

=

M=

c , z , Rd

pl , z , Rd

=

M 0

1.05

M c , z , Rd = 84.8 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

For major y-y axis

Vy ,=

500 kN > 0.5 Vc , y ,=

333.7 kN Shear Reduction is needed

Ed

Rd

Av =htw =467.2 11.4 =4,879.2 mm 2

2

2VEd

2 500 2

=

1=

1= 0.2482

V

667.5

,

c

Rd

Av 2

0.1525 4879.22

W

f

2,

230,

000

pl , y

yk

235

4tw

4 11.4

=

M y ,c , Rd

M y ,V , Rd =

M 0

1.05

M V ,r , Rd = 470.1kN-m

With Compression Reduction

=

n

=

a

N Ed

1400

=

= 0.50

N pl , Rd 2797.6

=

= 0.40 0.5

A

12,500

1 n

1 0.5

= 499.1

1 0.5a

1 0.5 0.4

= 310.8 kN-m

M N=

M pl , y , Rd

, y , Rd

M N , y , Rd

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

n<a

n a 2

0.5 0.4 2

M N , z , Rd= M pl , z , Rd 1

= 84.8 1

1 a

1 0.4

M N , z , Rd = 82.26 kN-m

Non-Dimensional Slenderness Ratio:

Steel is S235

h 467.2

=

= 2.4 > 1.2

b f 192.8

and

=

t f 19.6 mm < 40 mm

So we should use the Buckling Curve a for the z-z axis and Buckling Curve b

for the y-y axis (NTC 2008, Table 4.2.VI).

Y-Y Axis Parameters:

For buckling curve a, =0.21 (NTC 2008, Table 4.2 VI)

K y = 1.00

Lcr , y =

K y Ly =

1 400 =

400 mm,

=

N cr , y

=

y

Lcr , y

ry

400

=

=

2.091

191.3

2 E

2 210, 000

=

=

5,925, 691kN

2

2

K y Ly 12,500 ( 2.091)

A

ry

Af y

=

N cr , y

12,500 235

= 0.022

5,925, 691

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2

0.5 1 + 0.21( 0.022 0.2 ) + 0.0222

=

y 0.5 1 + y y 0.2 + =

y

y =0.482

=

Stress Reduction

Factor: y

1

1

=

= 1.0388

2

2

2

+

0.0222

0.482

0.482

y + y y

=

y 1.0388 > 1.0, so=

y 1.0

N=

byy , Rd

=

M1

1.05

N byy , Rd = 2, 797.6 kN

Z-Z Axis Parameters:

For buckling curve b, =0.34 (NTC 2008, Table 4.2 VI)

K z = 1.00

1 400 =

400 mm,

Lcr , z =

K z Lz =

=

N cr , z

=

z

Lcr , z

rz

400

9.231

=

=

43.33

2 E

2 210, 000

=

=

304, 052 kN

2

2

K z Lz 12,500 ( 9.231)

A

rz

12,500 235

= 0.098

304, 052

Af y

=

N cr , z

2

0.5 1 + 0.34 ( 0.098 0.2 ) + 0.0982

=

z 0.5 1 + z z 0.2 + =

z

z =0.488

Stress Reduction

Factor: z

=

1

1

=

= 1.0362

2

2

2

0.488

0.488

+

0.0982

z + z z

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

=

z 1.0362 > 1.0, so=

z 1.0

N=

bzz , Rd

=

M1

1.05

N bzz , Rd = 2, 797.6 kN

h 467.2

=

= 2.4 > 2

b f 192.8

So we should use the Buckling Curve c for lateral-torsional buckling (NTC

2008, Table 4.2.VII).

LT =

0.49

for rolled section)

LT ,0 =(default

0.4

=0.75 (default for rolled section)

=

M B M=

MA M

=

0, =

200 kN-m

y 2

y 1

2

M

M

0

0

=

1.75 1.05 B + 0.3 B =

+ 0.3

=

1.75 1.05

1.75

200

MA

200

MA

2

=

kc

1

1

=

= 1.329

1.33 0.33 1.33 0.33 1.75

2 EI z I w ( Lcr , z ) GIT

M cr =

+

2

I

2 EI z

L

( cr , z ) z

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2 210, 000 23, 469,998 1.176 1012 4002 80, 769 1, 210, 000

1.75

M cr =

+ 2

4002

23, 469,998 210, 000 23, 469,998

=

LT

= 0.066

119, 477, 445,900

W pl , y f y

=

M cr

2

0.5 1 + 0.49 ( 0.066 0.4 ) + 0.75 0.0662

=

LT 0.5 1 + LT LT LT ,0 + =

LT

LT =

0.420

2

2

f =

1 0.5 (1 kc ) 1 2 LT 0.8 =

1 0.5 (1 1.329 ) 1 2 ( 0.066 0.8 ) =

0.987

=

LT

LT

1

1

1 1

1.0 or

2

f LT + LT 2 + LT 2

LT f

1

1

1

1

1.0 or

2

0.066 0.987

0.987 0.420 + 0.4202 + 0.75 0.0662

=

1.2118 (1.0 or 230.9 )

LT

so

LT =

1.0

fy

235

M b , Rd =

LT W pl , y

=

1.0 2, 230, 000

M1

1.05

M b , Rd = 499.095 kN-m

Section Bending & Compression Capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

2

D M y , Ed M z , Ed

=

C M N , y , Rd M N , z , Rd

5n

200 100

=

310.8 + 82.3

50.5

=

0.414 + 1.630

D

= 2.044 (Governs)

C

k factors used are taken from the software, and determined from Method 2 in

Annex B of Eurocode 3.

k yy = 0.547

k yz = 0.479

k zy = 0.698

k zz = 0.798

M y , Ed

M z , Ed

N Ed

D

=

+ k yy

+ k yz

W f

W pl , z f yk

C y Af yk

LT pl , y yk

M1

M1

M1

D

C

1, 400

200

100

+ 0.547

+ 0.479

112,500 235

2, 230, 000 235

379, 000 235

1

1.05

1.05

1.05

D

=0.5 + 0.22 + 0.56

C

D

= 1.284

C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

M y , Ed

M z , Ed

N Ed

D

=

+ k zy

+ k zz

W f

W pl , z f yk

C z Af yk

LT pl , y yk

M1

M1

M1

D

1, 400

200

100

=

+ 0.698

+ 0.798

2, 230, 000 235

379, 000 235

C 112,500 235

1

1.05

1.05

1.05

D

=0.5 + 0.28 + 0.941

C

D

= 1.721

C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

A continuous column is subjected to factored load N = 200 kN. This example

was tested using the NZS 3404-1997 steel frame design code. The design

capacities are compared with independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

L

A

Section A-A

L=6m

Material Properties

E = 200x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 76923.08 MPa

Loading

N

= 200 kN

Design Properties

fy = 250 MPa

Section: 350WC197

Section compactness check (compression)

Section compression capacity

Member compression capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-NZS-3404-1997.pdf, which is

available through the program Help menu.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Compact

Compact

0.00%

6275

6275

0.00%

4385

4385

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

fy = 250 MPa

Section: 350WC197

Ag = An = 25100 mm2

bf = 350 mm, tf = 28 mm, h = 331 mm, tw = 20 mm

r33 = 139.15 mm, r22 = 89.264 mm

Member:

le33 = le22 = 6000 mm (unbraced length)

Considered to be a braced frame

Loadings:

N * 200 kN

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

e

(b f t w )

fy

2tf

250

350 20

250

2 28

250

5.89

ep 9, ey 16, ew 90

e 5.89 ep 9 ,

Flange is compact

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

e

fy

tw

250

331

250

20

250

16.55

ep 30, ey 45, ew 180

e 16.55 ep 30 ,

Web is compact.

Section is Compact.

Section Compression Capacity:

Section is not Slender, so Kf = 1.0

N s K f An f y 1 25,100 250 / 10

N s 6275kN

Frame is considered a braced frame in both directions, so k e 22 k e 33 1

le 22

r2 2

6000

67.216 and

le 33

89.264

r3 3

6000

43.119

139.15

n 22

a 22

l e 22

K f fy

r22

250

6000

89.264

2 1 0 0 ( n 2 2 1 3 .5)

n 2 2 1 5 .3 n 2 2 2 0 5 0

2

1 250

67.216

250

2 0 .3 6 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

2

22

22

1 22

90

2 22

90

c 22 22

c 22

77.398

1 0.2083

90

77.398

2

90

1.317

90

1

22 22

1.317 1

90

1.317 77.398

0.6988

N c 22 c 22 N s N s

N c 22 0.6988 6275 4385 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

1

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object bending strengths are tested in this example.

A continuous column is subjected to factored moment Mx = 1000 kN-m. This

example was tested using the NZS 3404-1997 steel frame design code. The

design capacities are compared with independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Mx

L

A

Section A-A

L=6m

Material Properties

E = 200x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 76923.08 MPa

Loading

Mx = 1000 kN-m

Design Properties

fy = 250 MPa

Section: 350WC197

Section compactness check (bending)

Section bending capacity

Member bending capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

1

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-NZS-3404-1997.pdf, which is

available through the program Help menu.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness

Compact

Compact

0%

837.5

837.5

0%

837.5

837.5

0%

Ms,major (kN-m)

Member Bending Capacity,

Mb (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

1

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

fy = 250 MPa

Section: 350WC197

bf = 350 mm, tf = 28 mm, h = 331 mm, tw = 20 mm

I22 = 200,000,000 mm4

Z33 = 2,936,555.891 mm2

S33 = 3,350,000 mm2

J = 5,750,000 mm4

Iw = 4,590,000,000,000 mm6

Member:

le22 = 6000 mm (unbraced length)

Considered to be a braced frame

Loadings:

M m * 1000 kN -m

M 2 * 250 kN -m

M 3 * 500 kN -m

M 4 * 750 kN -m

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

e

(b f t w )

fy

2tf

250

350 20

250

2 28

250

5.89

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

1

ep 9, ey 16, ew 90

e 5.89 ep 9 ,

Flange is compact

Localized Buckling for Web:

e

fy

tw

250

331

250

20

250

16.55

ep 82, ey 115, ew 180

e 16.55 ep 30 ,

Web is compact.

Section is Compact.

Section Bending Capacity:

Z e Z c min( S ,1.5 Z ) for compact sections

Z e 33 Z c 33 3, 350, 000 m m

M s 33 M

s , m ajor

837.5 kN -m

kt = 1 (Program default)

kl = 1.4 (Program default)

kr = 1 (Program default)

lLTB = le22 = 6000 mm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

2

2 EI

EIw

22

G

J

2

2

le

le

M oa M o

M oa M o

ETABS 2013

1

2

5

12

2 2 10 5 2 10 8

2 10 4.59 10

76,

923.08

5,

750,

000

2

2

8, 400

8, 400

M oa M o 1786.938 kN -m

s 0.6

M 2

Ms

s

M oa

M oa

0.6

837.5 2

837.5

1786.938

1786.938

s 0.7954

m

1.7 M m *

M 2 *

M 3 * M 4 *

2

1.7 1000

250

500 750

2

2.5

2

1.817 2.5

2

M b 1210.64 kN -m 837.5 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BENDING

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object interacting axial and bending strengths are tested in this

example.

A continuous column is subjected to factored loads and moments N= 200 kN;

Mx= 1000 kN-m. This example was tested using the NZS 3404-1997 steel frame

design code. The design capacities are compared with independent hand

calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Mx

N

L

A

Section A-A

L=6m

Material Properties

E = 200x103 MPa

v = 0.3

G = 76923.08 MPa

Design Properties

fy = 250 MPa

N = 200 kN

Section: 350WC197

Mx = 1000 kN-m

Loading

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

Section bending capacity with compression reduction

Member in-plane bending capacity with compression reduction

Member out-of-plane bending capacity with compression reduction

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel

design documentation contained in the file SFD-NZS-3404-1997.pdf, which is

available through the program Help menu.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Compactness`

Compact

Compact

0.00%

837.5

837.5

0.00%

823.1

823.1

0.00%

837.5

837.5

0.00%

Mrx (kN-m)

Reduced In-Plane Member Bending

Capacity,

Mix (kN-m)

Reduced Out-of-Plane Member

Bending Capacity, Mo (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Section: 350WC197

Ag = An = 25100 mm2

I22 = 200,000,000 mm4

I33 = 486,000,000 mm4

J = 5,750,000 mm4

Iw = 4,590,000,000,000 mm6

Member:

lz=le33 = le22 = 6000 mm (unbraced length)

Considered to be a braced frame

=0.9

Loadings:

N * 200 kN

M m * 1000 kN -m

Section Compactness:

From example SFD IN-01-1, section is Compact in Compression

From example SFD IN-01-2, section is Compact in Bending

Section Compression Capacity:

From example SFD IN-01-1, N s 6275kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

From example SFD IN-01-1, N c 22 4385 kN

From example SFD IN-01-2, M s 33 M s , m ajor 837.5 kN -m

N*

200

M r 33 1.18 M s 33 1

1.18 837.5 1

M s 33 837.5

N s

0.9 6275

M r 33 953.252 837.5

M r 33 837.5kN -m

Strong-axis buckling strength needs to be calculated:

Frame is considered a braced frame in both directions, so k e 33 1

le 3 3

r3 3

n 33

a 33

6000

43.119

139.15

l e 33

K f fy

r33

250

6000

139.15

2100( n 3 3 13.5)

n 3 3 15.3 n 3 3 2050

2

1 250

43.119

250

19.141

33 n 33 a 33 b 33 43.119 19.141 0.5 52.690

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

33

33

1 33

90

2 33

90

c 33

33 1

c 33

2.145 1

ETABS 2013

0

52.690

1 0.1278

90

52.690

2

90

2.145

90

1

33 33

90

0.8474

2.145

50.690

N c 33 c 33 N s N s

N c 33 0.8474 6275

N c 33 5318 kN

m

M m in

M m ax

1000

3

3

N*

N*

1 m

1 m

M i M s 33 1

1

1

1.18

N c 33

N c 33

2

2

3

3

200

200

1 0

1 0

M i 837.5 1

1

1.18

1

0.9 5318

0.9 5318

2

2

M i 823.11 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS 2013

0

bc

bc

1

1

N *

1 m

m

0

.4

0

.2

3

2

N c 2 2

2

1

3

1 0 1 0 3

200

0.4 0.23

2

0.9 4385

2

bc 4.120

EIw

2

N oz G J

lz

2 10 4.59 10

2

76923.08 5.75 10

6

I 33 I 22

Ag

N oz 4.423 10

11

12

6000

4.86 2 10 8

25100

kN

M b 33 o 1.0 0.7954 837.5 666.145 kN -m

N *

N*

M o 33 bc M b 33 o 1

1

M r 33

N

c 22

oz

200

200

M o 33 4.12 666.145 1

2674 837.5

1

11

0.9 4385

0.9 4.423 10

M o 33 837.5 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear design of a rectangular concrete beam is calculated in this

example.

A simply supported beam is subjected to an ultimate uniform load of 9.736 k/ft.

This example is tested using the ACI 318-08 concrete design code. The flexural

and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent hand calculated

results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

10"

13.5"

2.5"

A

Section A-A

10' = 120"

Material Properties

E=

3600 k/in2

=

0.2

G=

1500 k/in2

Section Properties

d = 13.5 in

b = 10.0 in

I = 3,413 in4

Design Properties

fc = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min

Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av

Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution described in Example 6.1 in Notes on ACI 318-08 Building Code.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1460.4

1460.4

0.00%

2.37

2.37

0.00%

37.73

37.73

0.00%

0.041

0.041

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match for the flexural and the shear

reinforcing.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

= 0.9, Ag = 160 sq-in

As,min =

200

bw d = 0.450 sq-in (Govern)

fy

3 f c'

fy

bw d = 0.427 sq-in

f c 4000

0.85

=

1000

1 =

0.85 0.05

0.003

=

d 5.0625 in

0.003 + 0.005

=

cmax

Combo1

wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 9.736 k/ft

Mu =

wu l 2

= 9.736 102/8 = 121.7 k-ft = 1460.4 k-in

8

a = d d2

2Mu

0.85 f c'b

Mu

1460.4

=

a

0.9 60 (13.5 4.183 / 2 )

fy d

2

As

As

= 2.37 sq-in

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear Design

The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:

0.75

f c :

Vc =

f c bd

= 12.807 k

Vs =

f c bd = 51.229 k

( Vc/2)

= 6.4035 k

Vmax = Vc + Vs = 64.036 k

Given Vu, Vc and Vmax, the required shear reinforcement in area/unit length for

any load combination is calculated as follows:

If Vu (Vc/2),

Av

= 0,

s

Av

(V Vc ) Av

= u

s

f ys d

s min

where:

b

Av

w

=

max

50

f

s min

yt

bw

,

f

yt

f c

a failure condition is declared.

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Combo1

=

(Vc =

Vu 37.727 k V

/ 2 ) 6.4035 k =

64.036 k

max

10 10 3

Av

4, 000

,

= max 50

s min

60, 000 60, 000 4

in 2

Av

=

=

max

0.0083,

0.0079

0.0083

{

}

in

s min

Av

=

s

(Vu Vc )

in 2

in 2

= 0.041

= 0.492

in

ft

f ys d

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load Pu = 398.4 k and

moments Muy = 332 k-ft. This column is reinforced with 4 #9 bars. The total area

of reinforcement is 8.00 in2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and result is compared.

Pu=398.4 kips

22"

Muy=332k-ft

A

14"

2.5"

10

Section A-A

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

3600 k/in2

0.2

1500 k/in2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fc = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

14 in

19.5 in

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Demand/Capacity Ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.000

1.00

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fc = 4 ksi

b = 14 inch

Pu = 398.4 kips

fy = 60 ksi

d = 19.5 inch

Mu = 332 k-ft

1) Because e = 10 inch < (2/3)d = 13 inch., assume compression failure. This assumption will be

checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

87

87

dt =

(19.5) = 11.54 inch

87 + f y

87 + 60

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc = 0.85 f c' ab = 0.85 4 14a = 47.6a

T = As f s = 4 f s f s < f y

(Eqn. 1)

Pn = 47.6a + 226.4 - 4 f s

3) Taking moments about As:

a

'

Cc d - 2 + Cs d - d

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 8.5 inch

e' = e + d " = 10 + 8.5 = 18.5 inch.

1

a

Pn =

47.6a 19.5 - + 226.4 (19.5 - 2.5 )

18.5

2

Pn =

1

e'

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

(Eqn. 2)

a = 0.85 13.45 = 11.43 inch

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

Pn = 50.17 11.43 - 1.29 (11.43) + 208 = 612.9 kips

5) Calculate fs from the strain diagram when c = 13.45 inch.

19.5 -13.45

fs =

87 = 39.13 ksi

13.45

s = t = f s Es = 0.00135

6) Substitute a = 13.45 inch and fs = 39.13 ksi in Eqn. 1 to calculate Pn2:

Pn2 = 47.6 (11.43) + 226.4 - 4 ( 39.13) = 613.9 kips

Which is very close to the calculated Pn2 of 612.9 kips (less than 1% difference)

10

M n = Pn e = 612.9 = 510.8 kips-ft

12

7) Check if compression steels yield. From strain diagram,

13.45 - 2.5

s' =

( 0.003) = 0.00244 > y = 0.00207 ksi

13.45

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

8) Calculate ,

dt = d = 19.5 inch,

c = 13.45 inch

19.45 -13.45

t (at the tension reinforcement level) = 0.003

= 0.00135

13.45

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear design of a rectangular concrete beam is calculated in this

example.

A simply supported beam is subjected to an ultimate uniform load of 9.736 k/ft.

This example is tested using the ACI 318-11 concrete design code. The flexural

and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent hand calculated

results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

10"

13.5"

2.5"

A

Section A-A

10' = 120"

Material Properties

E=

3600 k/in2

=

0.2

G=

1500 k/in2

Section Properties

d = 13.5 in

b = 10.0 in

I = 3,413 in4

Design Properties

fc = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min

Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av

Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution described in Example 6.1 in Notes on ACI 318-11 Building Code.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1460.4

1460.4

0.00%

2.37

2.37

0.00%

37.73

37.73

0.00%

0.041

0.041

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match for the flexural and the shear

reinforcing.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

= 0.9, Ag = 160 sq-in

As,min =

200

bw d = 0.450 sq-in (Govern)

fy

3 f c'

fy

bw d = 0.427 sq-in

f c 4000

0.85

=

1000

1 =

0.85 0.05

0.003

=

d 5.0625 in

0.003 + 0.005

=

cmax

Combo1

wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 9.736 k/ft

Mu =

wu l 2

= 9.736 102/8 = 121.7 k-ft = 1460.4 k-in

8

a = d d2

2Mu

0.85 f c'b

Mu

1460.4

=

a

0.9 60 (13.5 4.183 / 2 )

fy d

2

As

As

= 2.37 sq-in

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear Design

The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:

0.75

f c :

Vc =

f c bd

= 12.807 k

Vs =

f c bd = 51.229 k

( Vc/2)

= 6.4035 k

( Vc + 50 bd)

= 11.466 k

Vmax = Vc + Vs = 64.036 k

Given Vu, Vc and Vmax, the required shear reinforcement in area/unit length for

any load combination is calculated as follows:

If Vu (Vc/2),

Av

= 0,

s

Av

(V Vc ) Av

= u

s

f ys d

s min

where:

b

Av

w

=

max

50

s

f

min

yt

bw

,

f

yt

f c

a failure condition is declared.

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Combo1

=

(Vc =

Vu 37.727 k V

/ 2 ) 6.4035 k =

64.036 k

max

10 10 3

Av

4, 000

,

= max 50

s min

60, 000 60, 000 4

in 2

Av

=

=

max

0.0083,

0.0079

0.0083

{

}

in

s min

Av

=

s

(Vu Vc )

in 2

in 2

= 0.041

= 0.492

in

ft

f ys d

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load Pu = 398.4 k and

moments Muy = 332 k-ft. This column is reinforced with 4 #9 bars. The total area

of reinforcement is 8.00 in2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and result is compared.

Pu=398.4 kips

22"

Muy=332k-ft

A

14"

2.5"

10

Section A-A

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

3600 k/in2

0.2

1500 k/in2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fc = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

14 in

19.5 in

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Demand/Capacity Ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.000

1.00

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fc = 4 ksi

b = 14 inch

Pu = 398.4 kips

fy = 60 ksi

d = 19.5 inch

Mu = 332 k-ft

1) Because e = 10 inch < (2/3)d = 13 inch., assume compression failure. This assumption will be

checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis fro a balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

87

87

dt =

(19.5) = 11.54 inch

87 + f y

87 + 60

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc = 0.85 f c' ab = 0.85 4 14a = 47.6a

T = As f s = 4 f s f s < f y

(Eqn. 1)

Pn = 47.6a + 226.4 - 4 f s

3) Taking moments about As:

a

'

Cc d - 2 + Cs d - d

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 8.5 inch

e' = e + d " = 10 + 8.5 = 18.5 inch.

1

a

Pn =

47.6a 19.5 - + 226.4 (19.5 - 2.5 )

18.5

2

Pn =

1

e'

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

(Eqn. 2)

a = 0.85 13.45 = 11.43 inch

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

Pn = 50.17 11.43 - 1.29 (11.43) + 208 = 612.9 kips

5) Calculate fs from the strain diagram when c = 13.45 inch.

19.5 -13.45

fs =

87 = 39.13 ksi

13.45

s = t = f s Es = 0.00135

6) Substitute a = 13.45 inch and fs = 39.13 ksi in Eqn. 1 to calculate Pn2:

Pn2 = 47.6 (11.43) + 226.4 - 4 ( 39.13) = 613.9 kips

Which is very close to the calculated Pn2 of 612.9 kips (less than 1% difference)

10

M n = Pn e = 612.9 = 510.8 kips-ft

12

7) Check if compression steels yield. From strain diagram,

13.45 - 2.5

s' =

( 0.003) = 0.00244 > y = 0.00207 ksi

13.45

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

8) Calculate ,

dt = d = 19.5 inch,

c = 13.45 inch

19.45 -13.45

t (at the tension reinforcement level) = 0.003

= 0.00135

13.45

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear design of a rectangular concrete beam is calculated in this

example.

A simply supported beam is subjected to an ultimate uniform load of 9.736 k/ft.

This example is tested using the ACI 318-14 concrete design code. The flexural

and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent hand calculated

results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

10"

13.5"

2.5"

A

Section A-A

10' = 120"

Material Properties

E=

3600 k/in2

=

0.2

G=

1500 k/in2

Section Properties

d = 13.5 in

b = 10.0 in

I = 3,413 in4

Design Properties

fc = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min

Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av

Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution described in Example 6.1 in Notes on ACI 318-14 Building Code.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1460.4

1460.4

0.00%

2.37

2.37

0.00%

37.73

37.73

0.00%

0.041

0.041

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match for the flexural and the shear

reinforcing.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

= 0.9, Ag = 160 sq-in

As,min =

200

bw d = 0.450 sq-in (Govern)

fy

3 f c'

fy

bw d = 0.427 sq-in

f c 4000

0.85

=

1000

1 =

0.85 0.05

0.003

=

d 5.0625 in

0.003 + 0.005

=

cmax

Combo1

wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 9.736 k/ft

Mu =

wu l 2

= 9.736 102/8 = 121.7 k-ft = 1460.4 k-in

8

a = d d2

2Mu

0.85 f c'b

Mu

1460.4

=

a

0.9 60 (13.5 4.183 / 2 )

fy d

2

As

As

= 2.37 sq-in

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear Design

The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:

0.75

f c :

Vc =

f c bd

= 12.807 k

Vs =

f c bd = 51.229 k

( Vc/2)

= 6.4035 k

( Vc + 50 bd)

= 11.466 k

Vmax = Vc + Vs = 64.036 k

Given Vu, Vc and Vmax, the required shear reinforcement in area/unit length for

any load combination is calculated as follows:

If Vu (Vc/2),

Av

= 0,

s

Av

(V Vc ) Av

= u

f ys d

s

s min

where:

b

Av

w

= max 50

s min

f yt

bw

,

f yt

f c

a failure condition is declared.

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Combo1

(Vc =

/ 2 ) 6.4035 k =

Vu 37.727 k V

=

64.036 k

max

10 10 3

Av

4, 000

,

= max 50

s min

60, 000 60, 000 4

in 2

Av

=

=

max

0.0083,

0.0079

0.0083

}

{

in

s min

Av

=

s

(Vu Vc )

in 2

in 2

= 0.041

= 0.492

f ys d

in

ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load Pu = 398.4 k and

moments Muy = 332 k-ft. This column is reinforced with 4 #9 bars. The total area

of reinforcement is 8.00 in2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and result is compared.

Pu=398.4 kips

22"

Muy=332k-ft

A

14"

2.5"

10

Section A-A

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

3600 k/in2

0.2

1500 k/in2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fc = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

14 in

19.5 in

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Demand/Capacity Ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.000

1.00

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fc = 4 ksi

b = 14 inch

Pu = 398.4 kips

fy = 60 ksi

d = 19.5 inch

Mu = 332 k-ft

1) Because e = 10 inch < (2/3)d = 13 inch., assume compression failure. This assumption will be

checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis fro a balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

87

87

dt =

(19.5) = 11.54 inch

87 + f y

87 + 60

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc = 0.85 f c' ab = 0.85 4 14a = 47.6a

T = As f s = 4 f s f s < f y

(Eqn. 1)

Pn = 47.6a + 226.4 - 4 f s

a

'

Cc d - 2 + Cs d - d

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 8.5 inch

e' = e + d " = 10 + 8.5 = 18.5 inch.

1

a

Pn =

47.6a 19.5 - + 226.4 (19.5 - 2.5 )

18.5

2

Pn =

1

e'

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

(Eqn. 2)

a = 0.85 13.45 = 11.43 inch

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

Pn = 50.17 11.43 - 1.29 (11.43) + 208 = 612.9 kips

2

19.5 -13.45

fs =

87 = 39.13 ksi

13.45

s = t = f s Es = 0.00135

Pn2 = 47.6 (11.43) + 226.4 - 4 ( 39.13) = 613.9 kips

Which is very close to the calculated Pn2 of 612.9 kips (less than 1% difference)

10

M n = Pn e = 612.9 = 510.8 kips-ft

12

7) Check if compression steels yield. From strain diagram,

13.45 - 2.5

s' =

( 0.003) = 0.00244 > y = 0.00207 ksi

13.45

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

8) Calculate ,

dt = d = 19.5 inch,

c = 13.45 inch

19.45 -13.45

= 0.00135

13.45

Since t < 0.002 , then = 0.65

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear and Flexural Reinforcement Design of a Singly Reinforced T-Beam

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design. The load level is

adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions:

The stress-block extends below the flange but remains within the balanced

condition permitted by AS 3600-09.

The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress

allowed by AS 3600-09, requiring design shear reinforcement.

flange 100 mm thick and 600 mm wide is considered. The beam is shown in

Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame elements

automatically generated. The maximum element size has been specified to be

500 mm. The beam is supported by columns without rotational stiffnesses and

with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 kN/m).

The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case

(DL30) and one live load case (LL130), with only symmetric third-point loads of

magnitudes 30, and 130 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load

combinations (COMB130) is defined using the AS 3600-09 load combination

factors of 1.2 for dead load and 1.5 for live load. The model is analyzed for both

of these load cases and the load combination.

The beam moment and shear force are computed analytically. Table 1 shows the

comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcements. Table 2 shows the

comparison of the design shear reinforcements.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

600 mm

75 mm

100 mm

500 mm

75 mm

300 mm

Beam Section

2000 mm

2000 mm

2000 mm

Shear Force

Bending Moment

Figure 1 The Model Beam for Flexural and Shear Design

Clear span,

Overall depth,

Flange thickness,

Width of web,

Width of flange,

Depth of tensile reinf.,

L

h

Ds

bw

bf

dsc

=

=

=

=

=

=

6000

500

100

300

600

75

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Effective depth,

Depth of comp. reinf.,

d

d'

=

=

425

75

Concrete strength,

Yield strength of steel,

Concrete unit weight,

Modulus of elasticity,

Modulus of elasticity,

Poissons ratio,

fc

fy

wc

Ec

Es

v

=

=

=

=

=

=

30

460

0

25x105

2x108

0.2

Dead load,

Live load,

Pd

Pl

=

=

30

130

ETABS

0

mm

mm

MPa

MPa

kN/m3

MPa

MPa

kN

kN

Calculation of flexural and shear reinforcement

Application of minimum flexural and shear reinforcement

RESULTS COMPARISON

Table 1 shows the comparison of the total factored moments in the design strip.

They match exactly for this problem. Table 1 also shows the design

reinforcement comparison.

Table 1 Comparison of Moments and Flexural Reinforcements

Reinforcement Area (sq-cm)

Method

Moment (kN-m)

As+

ETABS

462

33.512

Calculated

462

33.512

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Table 2 Comparison of Shear Reinforcements

Reinforcement Area,

Av

s

(sq-cm/m)

Shear Force (kN)

ETABS

Calculated

231

12.05

12.05

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match for the flexural and the shear

reinforcing.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

0.67 0.85, where 2= 1.05 0.007f c =' 0.84 , use = 0.84

ku 0.36

=

amax =

ku d 0.840.36=

425 128.52 mm

2

D f ct , f

Ast .min = b

bw d

d f sy

D= h= 500 mm

1/4

bf

bf

D

D

bw

bw

b = 0.20 +

= 0.2378

=

f 'ct , f 0.5=

f 'c 0.5

=

30 3.3 MPa

f sy

= f=

460 MPa 500 MPa

y

Ast .min

2

D f ct , f

= 0.2378

bd

d f sy

= 299.9 mm2

COMB130

V* = (1.2Pd + 1.5Pl) = 231kN

V *L

= 462 kN-m

M =

3

*

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a =

d

d2

2M *

= 100.755 mm (a > Ds), so design as a T-beam.

2 f 'c b f

The compressive force developed in the concrete alone is given by the following

methodology:

The first part of the calculation is for balancing the compressive force from the

flange, Cf, and the second part of the calculation is for balancing the compressive

force from the web, Cw. Cf is given by:

Cf =

2 f c ( b f bw )min ( Ds , amax ) =

765 kN

Therefore,

A=

s1

C f 765

= = 1663.043 mm 2

f sy 460

min ( Ds , amax )

Muf =

C f d

= 229.5 kN-m

2

Again, the value for is 0.80 by default. Therefore, the balance of the

moment, M* to be carried by the web is:

M=

M * Muf = 462 229.5 = 232.5

uw

The web is a rectangular section of dimensions bw and d, for which the design

depth of the compression block is recalculated as:

a1 =

d

d2

2 M uw

= 101.5118 mm

2 f c bw

reinforcement is then given by:

As 2 =

M uw

= 1688.186 mm2

a

f sy d 1

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear Design

= 0.7 for shear

Calculated at the end of the beam, so M=0 and Ast = 0.

The shear force carried by the concrete, Vuc, is calculated as:

13

A

Vuc = 123bv d o f cv st

bv d o

= 0 kN

where,

1/3

=

1 1.11.6 o 1.1 =1.2925,

1000

3 = 1

bv = bw = 300mm as there are no grouted ducts

do = d = 425 mm

The shear force is limited to a maximum of:

Vu .max = 0.2 f c bd o = 765 kN

And the beam must have a minimum shear force capacity of:

Vu .min =

Vuc + 0.6bw d o =

0 + 0.6300425 =

77 kN

=

V * 231 kN > V=

0 , so reinforcement is needed.

uc / 2

=

V * 231 kN V=

535.5 kN , so concrete crushing does not occur.

u .max

f 'c bv

bw

mm 2

Asv

=

=

max

0.35

,

0.06

max

228.26,

214.33

{

}

f sy

f sy

m

s min

mm

Asv

= 228.26

m

s min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

COMB130

Since V

=

53.55 kN=

< V * 231 kN V=

535.5 kN

u .min

u .max

V * Vuc

Asv

A

=

sv

f sy d o cot v s min

s

v = the angle between the axis of the concrete compression strut and the

longitudinal axis of the member, which varies linearly from 30

degrees when V*=Vu,min to 45 degrees when V*=Vu,max = 35.52

degrees

v = 35.52 degrees

( 213 0 )

Asv

mm 2 Asv

=

=

1205.04

s

m

s

0.7460425cot 35.52o

Asv

cm 2

= 12.05

s

m

mm 2

=

228.26

m

min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected to factored axial load

N = 1733 kN and moment My = 433 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five

25M bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the

result is compared with computed results. The column is designed as a short,

non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

1733 kN

My= 433 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fcu = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Tied reinforced concrete column design

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.089

1.00

8.9%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fcu = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

b = 350 mm

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This

assumption will be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a

balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

600

600

dt =

( 490 ) = 277.4 mm

600 + f y

600 + 460

N = Cc + C s T

where

=

Cc =

0.85 30 =

350a 8925a

2 fc ab

T = As f = 2500 f s = 2500 f s f s < f y

N1 =

8925a + 1.086, 250 2500 fs

(Eqn. 1)

=

N2

1

a

Cc d + C s ( d d )

e

2

e =e + d =250 + 215 =465 mm

=

N

1

a

465

2

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

=

a 0.84

=

333.9 280.5 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

N 2 = 8925 280.5 9.597 ( 280.5 ) + 1, 004, 489= 2,888, 240 N

2

490 333.9

=

fs =

600 280.5 MPa

333.9

s =t =fs Es = 0.0014

6) Substitute a = 280.5 mm and fs = 280.5 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N1:

N1= 8925 ( 280.5 ) + 1, 086, 250 2500 ( 280.5 )= 2,887,373 N

which is very close to the calculated N2 of 2,888,240 (less than 1% difference)

250

= Ne

= 2888

=

M

722 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steel yields. From strain diagram,

333.9 60

=

s

=

> y 0.0023

) 0.0025=

( 0.003

333.9

Compression steel yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

N = 2888 =

1733 kN

e

250

M = 2888 = 0.60 2888 = 433 kN-m

1000

1000

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

Example Description

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

In the example a simple supported beam is subjected to a uniform factored load

of 36.67 kN/m. This example was tested using the BS 8110-97 concrete design

code. The flexural and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent

results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

230mm

550 mm

60 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

Material Properties

E=

25x106 kN/m2

=

0.2

G=

10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

d = 490 mm

W = 36.67 kN/m

Design Properties

fcu = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min

Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av

Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution described in Example 7.2 on page 149 of Reinforced Concrete

Design by W. H. Mosley, J. H. Bungey & R. Hulse.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

165.02

165.02

0.00%

964.1

964.1

0.00%

92.04

92.04

0.00%

0.231

0.231

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

m, steel

= 1.15

=

As ,min 0.0013

=

bw h 0.0013=

230550 164.45 mm 2

wu = =36.67 kN/m

Mu =

wu l 2

= 165 kN-m

8

K=

M

= 0.0996 < 0.156

f cu b d 2

beam.

Then the moment arm is computed as:

K

z = d 0.5 + 0.25

0.95d = 427.90 mm

0.9

As =

M

= 964.1 sq-mm

( f y 1.15) z

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Shear Design

L2

V=

U d=

92.04 kN at distance, d, from support

U

2

v=

VU

= 0.8167 MPa

bd

v vmax , so no concrete crushing

The shear stress carried by the concrete, vc, is calculated as:

1

vc =

= 0.415 MPa

m bd d

k1 is the enhancement factor for support compression,

and is conservatively taken as 1 .

1

f 3

k2 = cu = 1.06266, 1 k2

25

40

25

m, concrete = 1.25

0.15

100 As

3

bd

100 As 100266

=

= 0.2359

bd

230490

1

400 4

400

=

0.95 1, so

d

d

is taken as 1.

fcu 40 MPa (for calculation purposes only) and As is the area of tension

reinforcement.

If (vc + 0.4) < v vmax

Asv (v vc )bw

=

sv

0.87 f yv

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Asv

=

sv

v vc ) bw ( 0.8167 0.4150 )

(=

0.87 f yv

0.87 460

ETABS

0

= 0.231 sq-mm/mm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected to factored axial load

N = 1971 kN and moment My = 493 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five

25M bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the

result is compared with computed results. The column is designed as a short,

non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

1971 kN

My= 493 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fcu = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.994

1.00

0.40%

CONCLUSION

The computed result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent

result.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Column Strength under compression control

fcu = 30 MPa

b = 350 mm

fy = 460 MPa

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This

assumption will be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a

balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

=

cb

700

700

=

dt

=

( 490 ) 312 mm

700 + f y / s

700 + 460 /1.15

N = Cc + C s T

where

0.67

=

fcu ab 0.67 1.5 =

30 350a 4667 a

As

2500

Cs =

f y 0.4467 fcu ) = ( 460 0.4467 30 ) =

971, 014 N

(

s

1.15

Assume compression steel yields (this assumption will be checked later).

As fs 2500 fs

=

T =

= 2174 fs ( fs < f y )

s

1.15

=

Cc

(Eqn. 1)

=

N

1

a

Cc d + C s ( d d )

e

2

e =e + d =250 + 215 =465 mm

=

N

1

a

465

2

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

=

a 0.9

=

364 327.6 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

=

N 2 4917.9 327.6 5.018 ( 327.6 ) + 897,926

= 1,970,500 N

5) Calculate fs from the strain diagram when c = 365 mm.

490 364

=

fs =

700 242.3 MPa

364

=

=

fs Es = 0.0012

s

t

6) Substitute a = 327.6 mm and fs = 242.3 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N1:

=

=

N1 4, 667 ( 327.6 ) + 971, 014 2174 ( 242.3

) 1,973,163 N

which is very close to the calculated N2 of 1,970,500 (less than 1% difference)

250

M = Ne = 1971

= 493 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steels yield. From strain diagram,

365 60

=

s

=

=

> y 0.0023

) 0.00292

( 0.0035

365

Compression steel yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, the section capacity is

N = 1971 kN

M = 493 kN-m

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

In the example a simply supported beam is subjected to a uniform factored load

of 92.222 kN/m. This example is tested using the CSA A23.3-04 concrete design

code. The flexural and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent

results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

400mm

600 mm

54 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

Material Properties

E=

25x106 kN/m2

=

0.2

G=

10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

d = 546 mm

W = 92.222 kN/m

Design Properties

fc = 40 MPa

fy = 400 MPa

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min

Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av

Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution described in Example 2.2 on page 2-12 in Part II on Concrete Design

Handbook of Cement Association of Canada.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

415.00

415.00

0.00%

2466

2466

0.00%

226.31

226.31

0.00%

0.379

0.379

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

s = 0.85 for reinforcement

As,min =

0.2 f c

b h = 758.95 mm2

fy

1 = 0.97 0.0025f'c 0.67 = 0.87

cb =

700

d = 347.45 mm

700 + f y

ab = 1cb = 302.285 mm

COMB1

Mf =

wu l 2

= 415 kN-m

8

a = d d2

2M f

1 f 'c c b

= 102.048 mm

As =

Mf

a

2

= 2466 mm2

s f y d

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

4

4

2

=

=

=

As ,min min

As ,min , As ,required min

758.95, 2466 758.95 mm

3

3

Shear Design

The basic shear strength for rectangular section is computed as,

c = 0.65 for shear

d v is the effective shear depth. It is taken as the greater of

Vc = c f c bw dv = 145.45 kN

= 35 since f y 400 MPa and f 'c 60 MPa

Av (V f Vc ) tan

= 0.339 mm2/mm

=

s f yt d v

s

fc

Av

b = 0.379 mm2/mm (Govern)

= 0.06

fy

s min

'

Software Verification

ETABS

4

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load N

= 2098 kN and moment My = 525 kN-m. This column is reinforced with 5 T25

bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are

compared. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

2098 kN

My= 525 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fc = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Design

Software Verification

ETABS

4

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.9869

1.00

-1.31%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

ETABS

4

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fcu = 30 MPa

b = 350 mm

fy = 460 MPa

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This assumption will

be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis fro a balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

700

700

dt =

( 490) = 296 mm

700 + f y

700 + 460

Pr = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc = c 1 f c' ab = 0.65 0.805 30 350a = 5494.1a

T = s As f s = 0.85 2500 f s =

2125 f s ( f s < f y )

Pr = 5, 494.1a + 926,181 - 2125 f s

(Eqn. 1)

a

'

Cc d - 2 + C s d - d

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 215 mm

e' = e + d " = 250 + 215 = 465 mm

1

a

Pr =

5, 494.1a 490 - + 926,181 ( 490 - 60 )

465

2

2

Pr = 5789.5a - 5.91a + 856, 468.5

Pr =

1

e'

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

a = 0.895 355 = 317.7 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

Pr = 5789.5 317.7 - 5.91 ( 317.7 ) + 856, 468.5 = 2,099,327.8 N

2

490 - 355

fs =

700 = 266.2 MPa

355

s = t = f s Es = 0.0013

6) Substitute a = 317.7 mm and fs = 266.2 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate Pr2:

Pr2 = 5, 494.1 ( 317.7 ) + 926,181 - 2125 ( 266.2 ) = 2,106,124.9 N

Which is very close to the calculated Pr1 of 2,012,589.8 (less than 1% difference)

250

M r = Pr e = 2100

= 525 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steels yield. From strain diagram,

355 - 60

s' =

( 0.0035) = 0.00291 > y = 0.0023

355

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

Pr = 2098 kN

M r = 525 kN-m

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

In the example a simply supported beam is subjected to a uniform factored load

of 92.222 kN/m. This example is tested using the CSA A23.3-14 concrete design

code. The flexural and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent

results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

400mm

600 mm

54 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

Material Properties

E=

25x106 kN/m2

=

0.2

G=

10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

d = 546 mm

W = 92.222 kN/m

Design Properties

fc = 40 MPa

fy = 400 MPa

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min

Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av

Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution described in Example 2.2 on page 2-12 in Part II on Concrete Design

Handbook of Cement Association of Canada.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

415.00

415.00

0.00%

2466

2466

0.00%

226.31

226.31

0.00%

0.379

0.379

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

s = 0.85 for reinforcement

As,min =

0.2 f c

b h = 758.95 mm2

fy

1 = 0.97 0.0025f'c 0.67 = 0.87

cb =

700

d = 347.45 mm

700 + f y

ab = 1cb = 302.285 mm

COMB1

wu l 2

= 415 kN-m

Mf =

8

The depth of the compression block is given by:

a = d d2

2M f

1 f 'c c b

= 102.048 mm

As =

Mf

a

s f y d

2

= 2466 mm2

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

4

4

2

=

=

=

As ,min min

As ,min , As ,required min

758.95, 2466 758.95 mm

3

3

Shear Design

The basic shear strength for rectangular section is computed as,

c = 0.65 for shear

= {1.00, for normal density concrete

d v is the effective shear depth. It is taken as the greater of

Vc = c f c bw dv = 145.45 kN

Av (V f Vc ) tan

= 0.339 mm2/mm

=

s f yt d v

s

fc

Av

b = 0.379 mm2/mm (Govern)

= 0.06

fy

s min

'

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load N

= 2098 kN and moment My = 525 kN-m. This column is reinforced with 5 T25

bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are

compared. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

2098 kN

My= 525 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fc = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Design

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.9869

1.00

-1.31%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fcu = 30 MPa

b = 350 mm

fy = 460 MPa

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This assumption will

be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis fro a balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

700

700

dt =

( 490) = 296 mm

700 + f y

700 + 460

Pr = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc = c 1 f c' ab = 0.65 0.805 30 350a = 5494.1a

T = s As f s = 0.85 2500 f s =

2125 f s ( f s < f y )

Pr = 5, 494.1a + 926,181 - 2125 f s

(Eqn. 1)

a

'

Cc d - 2 + C s d - d

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 215 mm

e' = e + d " = 250 + 215 = 465 mm

1

a

Pr =

5, 494.1a 490 - + 926,181 ( 490 - 60 )

465

2

2

Pr = 5789.5a - 5.91a + 856, 468.5

Pr =

1

e'

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a = 0.895 355 = 317.7 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

Pr = 5789.5 317.7 - 5.91 ( 317.7 ) + 856, 468.5 = 2,099,327.8 N

2

490 - 355

fs =

700 = 266.2 MPa

355

s = t = f s Es = 0.0013

6) Substitute a = 317.7 mm and fs = 266.2 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate Pr2:

Pr2 = 5, 494.1 ( 317.7 ) + 926,181 - 2125 ( 266.2 ) = 2,106,124.9 N

Which is very close to the calculated Pr1 of 2,012,589.8 (less than 1% difference)

250

M r = Pr e = 2100

= 525 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steels yield. From strain diagram,

355 - 60

s' =

( 0.0035) = 0.00291 > y = 0.0023

355

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

Pr = 2098 kN

M r = 525 kN-m

Software Verification

ETABS

2

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

In the example a simple supported beam is subjected to a uniform factored load

of 36.67 kN/m. This example is tested using the Eurocode concrete design code.

The flexural and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent

results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

230mm

550 mm

60 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

Material Properties

E=

25x106 kN/m2

=

0.2

G=

10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

d = 490 mm

b = 230 mm

Design Properties

fck = 30 MPa

fyk = 460 MPa

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min

Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av

Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution.

Country

cc

k1

k2

k3

k4

1.5

1.15

1.0

0.44

1.25

0.54

1.25

UK

1.5

1.15

0.85

0.40

1.25

0.40

1.25

Norway

1.5

1.15

0.85

0.44

1.25

0.54

1.25

Singapore

1.5

1.15

0.85

0.40

1.25

0.54

1.25

Finland

1.5

1.15

0.85

0.44

1.10

0.54

1.25

Denmark

1.45

1.2

1.0

0.44

1.25

0.54

1.25

Germany

1.5

1.15

0.85

0.64

0.80

0.72

0.80

Poland

1.4

1.15

1.0

0.44

1.25

0.54

1.25

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Country

Design

Moment,

MEd (kN-m)

Tension

Reinforcing,

As+ (sq-mm)

Design Shear,

VEd

(kN)

ETABS

2

Shear

Reinforcing,

Asw/s (sqmm/m)

% diff.

Method

ETABS

Hand

ETABS

Hand

ETABS

Hand

ETABS

Hand

0.00%

CEN Default,

Slovenia,

Sweden, Portugal

165

165

916

916

110

110

249.5

249.5

0.00%

UK

165

165

933

933

110

110

249.5

249.5

0.00%

Norway

165

165

933

933

110

110

249.5

249.5

0.00%

Singapore

165

165

933

933

110

110

249.5

249.5

0.00%

Finland

165

165

933

933

110

110

249.5

249.5

0.00%

Denmark

165

165

950

950

110

110

249.5

249.5

0.00%

Germany

165

165

933

933

110

110

249.5

249.5

0.00%

Poland

165

165

925

925

110

110

249.5

249.5

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for both of the load combinations:

m, steel

= 1.15

m, concrete = 1.50

cc = 1.0

k1 = 0.44

k2 =

k4 =

1.25 ( 0.6 + 0.0014 / cu 2 ) =

1.25 k3 = 0.54

f cd = cc f ck / c = 1.0(30)/1.5 = 20 MPa

=

f yd f yk / s = 460/1.15 = 400 Mpa

f=

f yk / s = 460/1.15 = 400 Mpa

ywd

= 0.8 for fck 50 MPa

As ,min = 0.26

f ctm

bd = 184.5 sq-mm,

f yk

2/3

= 0.3(30)2/3 = 2.896 N/sq-mm

where f ctm = 0.3 f cwk

COMB1

The factored design load and moment are given as,

wu = 36.67 kN/m

wu l 2

= 36.67 62/8 = 165.0 kN-m

M =

8

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

The limiting value of the ratio of the neutral axis depth at the ultimate limit state

to the effective depth, ( x / d )lim , is given as,

k1

x

for fck 50 MPa ,

=

k2

d lim

where = 1 , assuming no moment redistribution

k1

x

=

=

k2

d lim

(1 0.44

)

=

1.25

0.448

x x

mlim = 1 = 0.29417

d lim 2 d lim

The limiting normalized steel ratio is given as,

x

= 1 1 2mlim = 0.3584

d lim

lim =

165 106

=

=0.1494 < mlim so a singly reinforced

m= 2

bd f cd

230 4902 1.0 20

beam will be adequate.

f bd

1.0 20 230 490

As = cd = 0.1626

=916 sq-mm

400

f yd

Shear Design

The shear force demand is given as,

=

VEd =

L / 2 110.01 kN

The shear force that can be carried without requiring design shear reinforcement,

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

1/3

=

VRd ,c CRd ,c k (100 1 f ck ) + k1 cp bw d

1/3

VRd ,c= 0.12 1.6389 (100 0.0 30 ) + 0.0 230 490= 0 kN

vmin + k1 cp bd = [ 0.4022 + 0.0] 230 490 =

V=

45.3 kN

Rd , c

where,

k=

1+

=

1

200

2.0 = 1.6389

d

AS

0

=

= 0.0 0.02

bd 230490

reinforcement at the location offset by d+ldb beyond the point considered.

(EN 1992-1-1:2004 6.2.2(1) Figure 6.3)

=

cp

N Ed

= 0.0

Ac

=

vmin 0.035

=

k 3/2 fck 1/2 0.4022

The maximum design shear force that can be carried without crushing of the

notional concrete compressive struts,

=

VRd ,max cwbzv1 f cd / ( cot + tan )

where,

cw = 1.0

=

z 0.9

=

d 441.0 mm

v1 = 0.6 1 ck = 0.528

250

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

vEd

1

=

0.5sin

=

5.33

0.2 f ck (1 f ck / 250 )

where,

=

vEd

VEd

= 0.9761

bw d

=

=

+ tan ) 369 kN

VRd ,max cwbzv1 f cd / ( cot

The required shear reinforcing is,

Asw

VEd

110.01 1e6

=

=

= 249.5 sq-mm/m

s

zf ywd cot 441 460 2.5

1.15

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected to factored axial load

N = 2374 kN and moment My = 593 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five

25 bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the result

is compared with computed results. The column is designed as a short, non-sway

member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

2374 kN

My= 593 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fck = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.009

1.00

0.90%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fck = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

b = 350 mm

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This

assumption will be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a

balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

700

700

dt =

( 490 ) = 312 mm

700 + f y / s

700 + 460 / 1.15

N = Cc + C s T

where

f

30

1.0

350a =

7000a

Cc =

cc ck ab =

1.5

c

=

Cs

As

fck 2500

30

f y cc=

460 1.0 =

956,521.7 N

1.5

s

c 1.15

As fs 2500 fs

=

= 2174 fs ( fs < f y )

s

1.15

N1 =

7, 000a + 956,521.7 2174 fs

=

T

(Eqn. 1)

1

a

=

N2

Cc d + C s ( d d )

e

2

e =e + d =250 + 215 =465 mm

=

N2

1

a

465

2

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

=

a 0.8

=

356 284.8 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

N=

7376.3 284.8 7.527 ( 284.8 ) + 884,525.5

= 2,374,173 N

2

2

490 356

=

fs =

700 263.4 MPa

356

s =t =fs Es = 0.00114

6) Substitute a = 284.8 mm and fs = 263.4 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N1:

=

=

N1 7, 000 ( 284.8 ) + 956,522 2174 ( 263.5

) 2,377, 273 N

which is very close to the calculated N2 of 2,374,173 (less than 1% difference)

250

M

= Ne

= 2374

=

593.5 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steels yield. From strain diagram,

356 60

=

s

=

> y 0.0023

) 0.0029=

( 0.0035

356

Compression steel yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

N = 2,374 kN

M = 593 kN-m

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

A simply supported beam is subjected to a uniform factored load of 36.67 kN/m.

This example is tested using the HK CP 2004 concrete design code. The flexural

and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

230mm

550 mm

60 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

Material Properties

E=

25x106 kN/m2

=

0.2

G=

10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

d = 490 mm

w = 36.67 kN/m

Design Properties

fcu = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min

Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av

Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

CONCLUSION

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution based on section 6.1 of Hong Kong Code of Practice for Structural

Use of Concrete 2004.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

165.02

165.02

0.00%

964

964

0.00%

92.04

92.04

0.00%

0.231

0.231

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

m, steel

= 1.15

As ,min = 0.0013bh

= 164.5 sq-mm

wu = =36.67 kN/m

Mu =

wu l 2

= 165 kN-m

8

K=

M

= 0.0996 < 0.156

f cu b d 2

beam.

Then the moment arm is computed as:

K

z = d 0.5 + 0.25

0.95d = 427.900 mm

0.9

As =

M

= 964 sq-mm

( f y 1.15) z

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Shear Design

Vu = =92.04 kN at a distance, d, from support

v=

V

= 0.8167 MPa

bd

v vmax , so no concrete crushing

The shear stress carried by the concrete, vc, is calculated as:

1

vc =

= 0.4150 MPa

m bd d

k1 is the enhancement factor for support compression,

and is conservatively taken as 1 .

1

f 3

k2 = cu = 1.06266, 1 k2

25

40

25

m, concrete = 1.25

0.15

100 As

3

bd

100 As 100266

= = 0.2359 0.15

bd

230490

1

400 4

400

=

0.95 1, so

d

d

is taken as 1.

fcu 40 MPa (for calculation purposes only) and As is the area of tension

reinforcement.

If (vc + 0.4) < v vmax

Asv (v vc )bw

=

sv

0.87 f yv

Asv (v vc )bw

= 0.231 sq-mm/mm

=

sv

0.87 f yv

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected to factored axial load

N = 1971 kN and moment My = 493 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five

25M bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the

result is compared with the computed results. The column is designed as a short,

non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

1971 kN

My= 493 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fcu = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.994

1.00

0.60%

CONCLUSION

The computed result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent

result.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Column Strength under compression control

fcu = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

b = 350 mm

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This

assumption will be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a

balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

=

cb

700

700

=

dt

=

( 490 ) 312 mm

700 + f y / s

700 + 460 /1.15

N = Cc + C s T

where

0.67

=

fcu ab 0.67 1.5 =

30 350a 4667 a

As

2500

Cs =

f y 0.4467 fcu ) = ( 460 0.4467 30 ) =

971, 014 N

(

s

1.15

Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).

As fs 2500 fs

=

T =

= 2174 fs ( fs < f y )

s

1.15

N1 =4, 667 a + 971, 014 2174 fs

=

Cc

(Eqn. 1)

=

N

1

a

Cc d + C s ( d d )

e

2

e =e + d =250 + 215 =465 mm

=

N

1

a

465

2

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

=

a 0.9

=

364 327.6 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

=

N 2 4917.9 327.6 5.018 ( 327.6 ) + 897,926

= 1,970,500 N

2

490 364

=

fs =

700 242.3 MPa

364

s =t =fs Es = 0.0012

6) Substitute a = 327.6 mm and fs = 242.3 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N1:

=

N1 4, 667 ( 327.6 ) + 971, 014 2174 ( 242.3

=

) 1,973,163 N

which is very close to the calculated N2 of 1,970,500 (less than 1% difference)

250

M = Ne = 1971

= 493 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steel yields. From strain diagram,

365 60

=

s

=

=

> y 0.0023

) 0.00292

( 0.0035

365

Compression steel yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, the section capacity is

N = 1971 kN

M = 493 kN-m

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

In the example a simply supported beam is subjected to a uniform factored load

of 37.778 kN/m. This example is tested using the IS 456-2000 concrete design

code. The flexural and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent

results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

300mm

600 mm

37.5 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

Material Properties

E=

19.365x106 kN/m2

=

0.2

G=

8068715.3kN/m2

Section Properties

d = 562.5 mm

w = 37.778 kN/m

Design Properties

fck = 15 MPa

fy = 415 MPa

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min

Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av

Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

The example problem is same as Example-1 given in SP-16 Design Aids for

Reinforced Concrete published by Bureau of Indian Standards. For this example

a direct comparison for flexural steel only is possible as corresponding data for

shear steel reinforcement is not available in the reference for this problem.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

170.00

170.00

0.00%

1006

1006

0.00%

113.33

113.33

0.00%

0.333

0.333

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

m, steel

= 1.15

m, concrete = 1.50

= 0.36

= 0.42

As ,min

0.85

bd = 345.63 sq-mm

fy

COMB1

Mu = 170 kN-m

Vu = 113.33 kN-m

xu ,max

d

Xu , max

d

0.53

165

=

0.48 0.02 f y 415

85

0.46

if

f y 250 MPa

if 415 < f y 500 MPa

if

f y 500 MPa

= 0.48

m=

Mu

= 0.33166

bw d 2 f ck

Mw,single = fckbwd2

x u,max

x u,max

= 196.436 kN-m > Mu

1

d

d

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

= 0.3983

xu 1 1 4 m

=

d

2

x

d

u

= 1006 sq-mm

As =

( fy s ) z

Shear Design

v =

Vu

= 0.67161

bd

k = 1.0

=

1

0.15

if Pu 0 , Under Tension

100 As

3

bd

100 As

= 0.596

bd

cd = kc = 0.49

The required shear reinforcement is calculated as follows:

Since v > cd

Asv

0.4b ( v cd ) b

0.4 300 ( 0.67161 0.49 ) 300

,

,

= max

=

max

s

( 415 1.15)

( 415 1.15 )

( f y ) ( f y ) y

Asv

mm 2

=

max

=

{0.333,0.150} 0.333

s

mm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load N

= 1913 kN and moment My= 478 kN-m. This column is reinforced with 5 25M

bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and computed

result is compared. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

1913 kN

My= 478 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fc = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.997

1.00

0.30%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results. The larger variation is due to equivalent rectangular compression block

assumption.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fcu = 30 MPa

b = 350 mm

fy = 460 MPa

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This assumption will

be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis fro a balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

700

700

dt =

( 490) = 296 mm

700 + f y

700 + 460

N = Cc + C s T

where

0.36

Cc =

f ck ab = 0.4286 30 350a = 4500a

0.84

A'

2500

Cs = s f y - 0.4286 f ck =

( 460 - 0.4286 30 ) = 972, 048 N

1.15

s

Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).

Af

2500 f s

T= s s=

= 2174 f s ( f s < f y )

s

1.15

(Eqn. 1)

N1 = 4500a + 972, 048 - 2174 f s

1

a

N 2 = ' Cc d - + Cs d - d '

e

2

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 215 mm

e' = e + d " = 250 + 215 = 465 mm

1

a

N2 =

4500a 490 - + 972, 048 ( 490 - 60 )

465

2

2

N 2 = 4742a - 4.839a + 898,883

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a = 0.84 374 = 314.2 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

N 2 = 4742 314.2 - 4.039 ( 314.2 ) + 898,883 = 1,911, 037 N

5) Calculate fs from the strain diagram when c = 365 mm.

490 - 374

fs =

700 = 217.11 MPa

374

s = t = f s Es = 0.0011

6) Substitute a = 314.2 mm and fs = 217.11 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N1:

N1 = 4500 ( 314.2 ) + 972, 048 - 2174 ( 217.4 ) = 1,913, 765 N

Which is very close to the calculated N2 of 1,911,037 (less than 1% difference)

250

M = Ne = 1913

= 478 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steels yield. From strain diagram,

374 - 60

s' =

( 0.0035 ) = 0.0029 > y = 0.0023

374

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

N = 1913 kN

M = 478 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

In the example a simple supported beam is subjected to a uniform factored load

of 36.67 kN/m. This example is tested using the Italian NTC 2008 concrete

design code. The flexural and shear reinforcing computed is compared with

independent results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

230mm

550 mm

60 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

Material Properties

E=

25x106 kN/m2

=

0.2

G=

10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

d = 490 mm

b = 230 mm

Design Properties

fck = 30 MPa

fyk = 460 MPa

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min

Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av

Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

165.00

165.00

0.00%

933

933

0.00%

110.0

110.0

0.00%

345.0

345.0

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for both of the load combinations:

c, concrete = 1.50

cc = 0.85

k1 = 0.44

k2 =

k4 =

1.25 ( 0.6 + 0.0014 / cu 2 ) =

1.25 k3 = 0.54

f cd = cc f ck / c = 0.85(30)/1.5 = 17 MPa

f yd =

f y 460

= 400 Mpa

s 1.15

= 0.8 for fck 50 MPa

As ,min = 0.26

f ctm

bd = 184.5 sq-mm,

f yk

2/3

where f ctm = 0.3 f cwk

= 0.3(30)2/3 = 2.896 N/sq-mm

COMB1

The factored design load and moment are given as,

wu = 36.67 kN/m

wu l 2

= 36.67 62/8 = 165.0 kN-m

M =

8

The limiting value of the ratio of the neutral axis depth at the ultimate limit state

to the effective depth, ( x / d )lim , is given as,

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

k1

x

for fck 50 MPa ,

=

k2

d lim

where = 1 , assuming no moment redistribution

k1

x

=

=

k2

d lim

(1 0.44

)

=

1.25

0.448

x x

mlim = 1 = 0.29417

d lim 2 d lim

x

= 1 1 2mlim = 0.3584

d lim

lim =

165 106

M

=

=0.1758 < mlim so a singly reinforced beam

m= 2

230 4902 17

bd f cd

will be adequate.

f bd

17 230 490

As = cd = 0.1947

=933 sq-mm

400

f yd

Shear Design

The shear force demand is given as,

=

VEd =

L / 2 110.0 kN

The shear force that can be carried without requiring design shear reinforcement,

1/3

=

VRd ,c CRd ,c k (100 1 f ck ) + k1 cp bw d

1/3

VRd ,c= 0.12 1.6389 (100 0.0 30 ) + 0.0 230 490= 0 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

V=

45.3 kN

Rd , c

where,

k=

1+

=

1

200

2.0 = 1.6389

d

AS

0

=

= 0.0 0.02

bd 230490

reinforcement at the location offset by d+ldb beyond the point considered.

(EN 1992-1-1:2004 6.2.2(1) Figure 6.3)

=

cp

N Ed

= 0.0

Ac

=

vmin 0.035

=

k 3/2 fck 1/2 0.4022

The maximum design shear force that can be carried without crushing of the

notional concrete compressive struts,

cot + cot

VRd ,max zb

=

=

c f 'cd

297 kN

2

1 + cot

where,

=

z 0.9

=

d 441.0 mm

f 'cd = 0.5 f cd

vEd

1

5.33

=

0.5sin

=

0.2 f ck (1 f ck / 250 )

where,

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

=

vEd

ETABS

0

VEd

= 0.9761

bw d

The required shear reinforcing is,

Asw VEd

mm 2

1

110.0106

=

= = 249.4

s

zf ywd ( cot + cot ) sin 441460 2.5

m

1.15

The minimum required shear reinforcing is,

mm 2

Asw

(controls)

=

1.5

=

b

1.5

230

=

345.0

m

s min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load N

= 2174 kN and moment My = 544 kN-m. This column is reinforced with 5-25

bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and computed

result is compared. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

2174 kN

My= 544 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fck = 25 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Design

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.092

1.00

9.20%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fcu = 25 MPa

b = 350 mm

fy = 460 MPa

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3) d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This assumption will

be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

700

700

dt =

( 490) = 296 mm

700 + f y

700 + 460

N = Cc + C s T

where

f ck

0.85 30

Cc =

ab =

350a = 5950a

1.5

c

As'

f ck 2500

0.85 30

Cs =

460 = 963, 043 N

fy =

1.5

s

c 1.15

Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).

Af

2500 f s

= 2174 f s ( f s < f y )

T= s s=

s

1.15

(Eqn. 1)

N1 = 5,950a + 963, 043 - 2174 f s

3) Taking moments about As:

1

a

N 2 = ' Cc d - + Cs d - d '

e

2

e' = e + d " = 250 + 215 = 465 mm

1

a

N2 =

5950a 490 - + 963, 043 ( 490 - 60 )

465

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

(Eqn. 2)

a = 0.8 365 = 292 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

N 2 = 6270 292 - 6.3978 ( 292 ) + 890,556 = 2,175,893 N

5) Calculate fs from the strain diagram when c = 356 mm.

490 - 365

fs =

700 = 240.0 MPa

365

s = t = f s Es = 0.0012

6) Substitute a = 284.8 mm and fs = 263.4 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N1:

N1 = 5950 ( 292 ) + 963, 043 - 2174 ( 240.0 ) = 2,178, 683 N

Which is very close to the calculated N2 of 2,175,893 (less than 1% difference)

250

M = Ne = 2175

= 544 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steels yield. From strain diagram,

365 - 60

s' =

( 0.0035 ) = 0.0029 > y = 0.0023

365

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

N = 2,174 kN

M = 544 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear and Flexural Reinforcement Design of a Singly Reinforced Rectangle

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this example is to verify the flexural and shear design. A simplespan, 6-m-long, 300-mm-wide, and 560-mm-deep beam is modeled. The beam is

shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame

elements, automatically generated. The maximum element size has been

specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by joint restraints that have no

rotational stiffness. One end of the beam has no longitudinal stiffness.

The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case

(DL50) and one live load case (LL130) with only symmetric third-point loads of

magnitudes 50, and 130 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load

combination (COMB130) is defined using the KBC 2009 load combination

factors of 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for

both of those load cases and the load combinations.

Table 1 shows the comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcements. Table 2

shows the comparison of the design shear reinforcements.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Clear span,

L

=

Overall depth,

h

=

Width of beam,

b

=

Effective depth,

d

=

Depth of comp. reinf.,

d'

=

Concrete strength,

fck =

Yield strength of steel,

fy

=

Concrete unit weight,

wc =

Modulus of elasticity,

Ec =

Modulus of elasticity,

Es =

Poissons ratio,

v

=

Dead load,

Live load,

Pd

Pl

=

=

6000

560

300

500

60

30

460

0

25x105

2x105

0.2

50

130

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

MPa

MPa

kN/m3

MPa

MPa

kN

kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Calculation of flexural and shear reinforcement

Application of minimum flexural and shear reinforcement

RESULTS COMPARISON

Table 1 shows the comparison of the total factored moments in the design strip

with the moments obtained using the analytical method. They match exactly for

this problem. Table 1 also shows the comparison of design reinforcements.

Table 1 Comparison of Moments and Flexural Reinforcements

Reinforcement Area (sq-mm)

Method

Moment

(kN-m)

As+

As-

ETABS

360

2109

Calculated

360

2109

Reinforcement Area,

Av

s

(sq-mm/m)

Shear Force (kN)

ETABS

Calculated

180

515.3

515.4

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for the load combination:

b = 0.85

=

1 0.85 .007(30 28)

= 0.836 for =

f ck 30MPa,

cmax =

c

c + f y Es

d = 187.5 mm

=

Ac b=

d 150, 000 mm 2

As ,min

0.25 f ck

Ac = 446.5

fy

mm2

= max

1.4 Ac = 456.5

fy

= 456.5 mm2

COMB130

Vu = (1.0Pd + 1.0Pl) = 180 kN Loads were Ultimate

Mu =

Vu L

= 360 kN-m

3

a =

d

d2

2 Mu

0.85 f ck bb

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Mu

=

2108.9 mm 2

a

f y d b

2

=

As

Shear Design

The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:

0.75

f ck = 5.48 MPa < 8.4 MPa

Vc =

1/6 f ck bd

= 102.69 kN

Vs= 0.25 f ck bd = 154.05 kN

The following limits are required in the determination of the reinforcement:

Vc/2

= 51.35 kN

Vmax = Vc + Vs

= 256.75 kN

Given Vu, Vc and Vmax, the required shear reinforcement in area/unit length for

any load combination is calculated as follows:

If Vu (Vc/2),

Av

= 0,

s

Av

(V Vc ) Av

= u

f ys d

s

s min

where:

b

Av

w

= max 3.5

s min

f y

bw

,

fy

0.2 f ck

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a failure condition is declared.

Combo1

Vu = 180 kN

(Vc /=

Vu 180 kN Vmax

= 256.75 kN

2 ) 51.35 kN =

300 0.2 30

Av

=

max

3.5

,

300

s min

420 420

mm 2

Av

=

max

=

2.5,

0.78

0.0083

{

}

mm

s min

Av

(Vu Vc )

mm 2

mm 2

= = 0.5154

= 515.4

mm

m

f yd

s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load Pu

= 1879 kN and moment Mu = 470 kN-m. This column is reinforced with 5 T25

bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and computed

result is compared. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

1879 kN

My= 470 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fck = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.003

1.00

0.30%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fck = 30 MPa

b = 350 mm

fy = 460 MPa

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This assumption will

be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis fro a balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cmax =

0.003

0.003

d=

( 490 ) = 183.75 mm

0.003 + 0.005

0.003 + 0.005

Pu = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc = 0.85 f ck ab = 0.85 30 350a = 8925a

Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).

T = As f s = 2500 f s ( f s < f y )

Pu = 8,925a +1, 086, 250 - 2500 f s

(Eqn. 1)

1

a

C d - + Cs d - d '

' c

e

2

e' = e + d " = 250 + 215 = 465 mm

a

1

Pu =

8,925a 490 - + 1, 086, 250 ( 490 - 60 )

465

2

2

Pu = 9, 404.8a - 9.6a +1, 004, 489.2

Pu =

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

=

1 0.85 .007(30 28)

= 0.836 for =

f ck 30MPa,

a = 0.836 335 = 280 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

Pu = 9, 404.8 280 - 9.6 ( 280 ) +1, 004, 489.2 = 2,885,193.2 N

2

490 - 335

fs =

600 = 277.8 MPa

335

s = t = f s Es = 0.00138

Pu2 = 8,925 ( 280 ) +1, 086, 250 - 2500 ( 277.8 ) = 2,890, 750 N

Which is very close to the calculated Pu1 of 2,885,193.2 (less than 1% difference)

250

M u = Pu e = 2890

= 722.5 kN-m

1000

335 - 60

s' =

( 0.003) = 0.00263 > y = 0.0023

335

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

Pu = 0.65 2890 = 21879 kN

M u = 0.65 722.5 = 470 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

30 cm

A

6.0 cm

A

6.0 m

Material Properties

E=

3.37E105 kgf/sq-cm

=

0.2

G=

1.40E105 kgf/sq-cm

Section Properties

h = 55.0 cm

b = 30.0 cm

d = 49.0 cm

49 cm

Section A-A

Design Properties

fc = 305.9 kgf/sq-cm

fy = 4690.69 kgf/sq-cm

Design moment calculation, Mu.

Minimum tension reinforcement, As

Design Shear , Vu

Area of shear reinforcement, Av

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULT COMPARISON

The independent results are hand calculated based on the Korean KCI-99 code.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

33484

33484

0.00%

As (cm2)

19.46

19.46

0.00%

22322.5

22322.5

0.00%

Av/s (cm2/cm)

0.0621

0.0621

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

= 0.85,

0.80 f 'c

14

As,min = max

bd , bd = 4.39 sq-cm

fy

f y

f c 280

0.8319

=

10

1 =

0.85 0.007

6000

=

d 27.50 cm

6000 + f y

=

cmax

Comb1

u = 74.4082 kgf/cm

Mu =

wu l 2

= 74.4082 6002/8 = 3,348,400 kgf-cm = 33,484 kgf-m

8

a = d d2

2Mu

0.85 f c'b

Mu

3,348, 400

=

a

0.85 4690.69 ( 49 11.70 / 2 )

fy d

2

As

As

= 19.46 sq-cm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear Design

The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:

0.80

2

=

Vu =

22,323 kgf

u ( L / 2)

Vc = 0.53 f 'c bd = 13, 626 kgf

The maximum shear that can be carried by reinforcement is given by:

Given Vu, Vc and Vmax, the required shear reinforcement in area/unit length is

calculated as follows:

If Vu Vc,

Av

= 0,

s

Av

(V V ) ,

= u

s

f ys d

A

0.2 f 'c 3.5

but at least, v max

=

=

b,

b 0.0224 sq-cm/cm

s

f y

f y

else if Vu > Vmax,

a failure condition is declared.

Comb1

Vu = 22,323 kgf

Av

=

s

(Vu Vc )

= 0.0621 sq-cm/cm

f ys d

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete column is subjected to factored axial load N = 2020kN and

moment My = 505kN-m. This column is reinforced with five 25M bars. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the result is compared

with the calculated result. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

1971 kN

My = 493 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fcu = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Tied reinforced concrete column design

KCI 1999 Example 002 - 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.980

1.00

2.04%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fcu = 30 MPa

b = 350 mm

fy = 460 MPa

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This

assumption will be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a

balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

600

600

dt =

( 490 ) = 277 mm

600 + f y

600 + 460

N = Cc + C s T

where

=

Cc 0.85

=

f 'c ab 0.85 =

30 350a 8925a

Cs =

As ( f y 0.85 f 'c ) =

2500 ( 460 0.85 30 ) =

1, 086, 250 N

=

T A=

2500 fs ( fs < f y )

s fs

N1 =

8925a + 1, 086, 250 2500 fs

(Eqn. 1)

1

a

=

N

Cc d + C s ( d d )

e

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 215 mm

e =e + d =250 + 215 =465 mm

=

N

a

1

465

2

N2 =

9405a 9.5968a 2 + 1, 004, 489

(Eqn. 2)

a = 0.836 335 = 280 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

N 2 = 9405 280 9.5968 ( 280 ) + 1, 004, 489 = 2,885,500 N

2

490 335

=

fs =

600 277.6 MPa

335

s =t =fs Es = 0.0014

6) Substitute a = 280 mm and fs = 277.6 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N1:

N1 = 8925 ( 280 ) + 1, 086, 250 2500 ( 277.6 ) = 2,891, 250 N

which is very close to the calculated N2 of 2,885,500 (less than 1% difference)

250

M

= Ne

= 2884

=

721 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steel yields. From strain diagram,

335 60

=

s

=

> y 0.0023

) 0.0025=

( 0.003

335

Compression steel yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

2020 kN

N = ( 2885 ) =

505 kN-m

M = ( 721) =

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

In the example a simple supported beam is subjected to a uniform factored load

of 6.58 Ton/m (64.528 kN/m). This example was tested using the Mexican

RCDF 2004 concrete design code. The computed moment and shear strengths are

compared with independent hand calculated results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

CL

W Ton/m

b

h

r

A

L

L=6m

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

1979899 kg/cm2

0.2

824958 kg/cm2

Section Properties

h

r

b

W

= 0.65 m

= 0.05 m

= 0.30 m

= 6.58 Ton/m

(64.528 kN/m)

Design Properties

fc = 200 kg/cm2 (19.6133 MPa)

fy = 4200 kg/cm2 (411.88 MPa)

Software Verification

ETABS

0

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Design moment calculation, M and factored moment resistance, Mu.

Minimum reinforcement calculation, As

Design Shear Strength, V, and factored shear strength, Vu

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution described in Example 5.2 on page 92 of Aspectos Fundamentales

del Concreto Reforzado Fourth Edition by scar M. Gonzlez Cuevas and

Francisco Robles Fernndez-Villegas.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

290.38

290.38

0%

As (mm2)

1498

1498

0%

154.9

154.9

0%

Av/s (mm2/m)

563

563

0%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results for bending and an acceptable-conservative comparison for shear.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Clear span,

Overall depth,

Width of beam,

Effective depth,

Concrete strength,

Yield strength of steel,

Concrete unit weight,

Modulus of elasticity,

Modulus of elasticity,

Poissons ratio,

L

h

b

d

fc

fy

wc

Ec

Es

v

=

6

=

650

=

300

=

600

=

19.61

= 411.88

=

0

= 20.6x103

= 20.0x104

=

0.2

ETABS

0

m

mm

mm

mm

N/ mm2

N/ mm2

kN/m3

N/ mm2

N/ mm2

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for the load combination:

=

f c*

cb =

f 'c 19.61

=

= 15.69 MPa

1.25 1.25

c Es

c Es + f yd

d = 355.8 mm

where,

=

As ,min

f*

=

1 1.05 c , 0.65 1 0.85

140

0.22 f 'c

=

bd 425.8 mm 2

fy

COMB1

u = 6.58 ton/cm (64.528kN/m)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Mu =

u l 2

8

ETABS

0

a =

d

d2

2 Mu

0.85 f c* FR b

= 154.2 mm

where FR = 0.9

Compression steel not required since a < amax.

The area of tensile steel reinforcement is given by:

As

Mu

290376000

=

= 1498 mm 2

a

0.9(411.88)

600

154.2

/

2

(

)

FR f y d

2

Shear Design

The shear demand is computed as:

=

Vu ( L / 2 d ) =15.79 ton (154.9 kN) at distance, d, from support for

this example

The shear force is limited to a maximum of,

Vmax

The nominal shear strength provided by concrete is computed as:

=

VcR 0.3FRv ( 0.2 + 20 ) f c* Acv = 0.3 0.8 ( 0.3665 ) 15.69 300 600

=43.553 kN

0.1 f c '

mm 2

Av

=

=

b

289

fy

m

s min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Av

=

s

Vu FRvVcR )

(=

FRv f ys d

ETABS

0

mm 2

= 563

0.8 411.88 600

m

(RCDF-NTC 2.5.2.3, Eqn 2.23)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete column is subjected to factored axial load N = 1794 kN

and moment My = 448 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five 25M bars. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the result is compared

with a computed result. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

1794 kN

My= 448 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fcu = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.999

1.00

0.10%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Column Strength under compression control

fcu = 30 MPa

b = 350 mm

fy = 460 MPa

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This

assumption will be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a

balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

=

cb

600

600

=

dt

=

( 490 ) 277 mm

600 + f y

600 + 460

N = Cc + C s T

where

=

Cc 0.85

=

f *c ab 0.85 0.8 =

30 350a 7140a

1, 099, 000 N

Cs =

As ( f y 0.85 f *c ) =

=

T A=

2500 fs ( fs < f y )

s fs

N1 =

7140a + 1, 099, 000 2500 fs

(Eqn. 1)

1

a

=

N

Cc d + C s ( d d )

e

2

e =e + d =250 + 215 =465 mm

1

a

=

N

7140a 490 + 1, 099, 000 ( 490 60 )

465

2

2

N 2 =7542a 7.677 a + 1, 016, 280

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a = 1a = 0.836 347 = 290 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

490 347

=

fs =

600 247.3 MPa

347

s =t =fs Es = 0.0012

6) Substitute a = 290 mm and fs = 247.3 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N1:

N1 = 7140 ( 290 ) + 1, 099, 000 2500 ( 247.3) = 2,551,350 N

which is very close to the calculated N2 of 2,557,824 (less than 1% difference)

250

= Ne

= 2552

=

M

638 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steel yields. From strain diagram,

347 - 60

s' =

( 0.003) = 0.0025 > y = 0.0023

347

Compression steel yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

N = FR ( 2551) = 1794 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear and Flexural Reinforcement Design of a Singly Reinforced Rectangle

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this example is to verify the flexural and shear design. The load

level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions:

compression reinforcement be provided as permitted by NZS 3101-06.

The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress

allowed by NZS 3101-06, requiring design shear reinforcement.

The beam is shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite

element mesh of frame elements, automatically generated. The maximum

element size has been specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by joint

restraints that have no rotational stiffness. One end of the beam has no

longitudinal stiffness.

The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case

(DL50) and one live load case (LL130) with only symmetric third-point loads of

magnitudes 50, and 130 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load

combination (COMB130) is defined using the NZS 3101-06 load combination

factors of 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for

both of those load cases and the load combinations.

Table 1 shows the comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcements. Table 2

shows the comparison of the design shear reinforcements.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Clear span,

L

=

Overall depth,

h

=

Width of beam,

b

=

Effective depth,

d

=

Depth of comp. reinf.,

d'

=

Concrete strength,

fc =

Yield strength of steel,

fy

=

Concrete unit weight,

wc =

Modulus of elasticity,

Ec =

Modulus of elasticity,

Es =

Poissons ratio,

v

=

Dead load,

Live load,

Pd

Pl

=

=

6000

560

300

500

60

30

460

0

25x105

2x105

0.2

50

130

ETABS

0

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

MPa

MPa

kN/m3

MPa

MPa

kN

kN

Calculation of flexural and shear reinforcement

Application of minimum flexural and shear reinforcement

RESULTS COMPARISON

Table 1 shows the comparison of the total factored moments in the design strip

with the moments obtained using the analytical method. They match exactly for

this problem. Table 1 also shows the comparison of design reinforcements.

Table 1 Comparison of Moments and Flexural Reinforcements

Reinforcement Area (sq-mm)

Method

Moment

(kN-m)

As+

As-

ETABS

510

3170

193

Calculated

510

3170

193

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Reinforcement Area,

Av

s

(sq-mm/m)

Shear Force (kN)

ETABS

Calculated

255

1192.5

1192.5

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for the load combination:

b = 0.85

=

1 0.85 for f c 55MPa

=

1 0.85 for f c 30,

cb =

c

c + f y Es

d = 283.02 mm

=

Ac b=

d 150, 000 mm 2

As ,min

f c

Ac = 446.5

4 fy

= max

mm2

1.4 Ac = 456.5

fy

= 456.5 mm2

COMB130

V* = (1.2Pd + 1.5Pl) = 255 kN

M* =

V *L

= 510 kN-m

3

a =

d

d

2

2 M*

1 fc'b b f

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

=

C =

1,380.2 kN

1 f c bamax

The resisting moment by the concrete compression and tension reinforcement is:

a

2

reinforcement is:

M s* = M * M c* = 29.2 kN m

The required compression reinforcing is given by:

=

As

M s*

=

193 mm 2 , where

f s 1 f 'c ( d d ) b

cb=

,max

amax

= 0.75=

cb 0.75283.02

= 212.26 mm

c

d '

f s c ,max Es b ,max

=

fy ;

cb ,max

212.26 60

=

f s 0.003200, 000

= 430 MPa =

f y 460 MPa

212.26

f s = 430 MPa

The required tension reinforcing for balancing the compression in the concrete is:

=

As1

M c*

= 3, 001 mm 2

a

f y d max b

2

And the tension required for balancing the compression reinforcement is given

by:

=

As 2

M s*

=

169.9 mm 2

f y ( d d ') b

=

As1 + As 2 is given by:

s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear Design

The nominal shear strength provided by concrete is computed as:

VC = vC ACV , where

vC = kd ka vb , and

kd = 1.0 since shear reinforcement provided will be equal

to or greater than the nominal amount required.

ka = 1.0 (Program default)

A

=

vb 0.07 + 10 s f 'C , except vb is neither less than

bd

0.08 f 'C nor greater than 0.2 f 'C and f 'C 50 MPa

vC = 0.4382

The average shear stress is limited to a maximum limit of,

vmax = min {0.2 f c , 8 MPa} = min{6, 8} = 6 MPa

For this example, the nominal shear strength provided by concrete is:

VC= vC ACV= 0.4382 300 500= 65.727 kN

*

V

=

= 1.7 MPa < vmax , so there is no concrete crushing.

v

bw d

*

For this example the required shear reinforcing strength is:

s = 0.75

V=

S

V*

255

65.727 = 274.3 kN

VC =

S

0.75

Since h =

560 mm > max {300 mm, 0.5bw =

0.5300 =

150 mm}

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

sc = 0.328 MPa

smax = 4.5 MPa

So sc < * smax, and shear reinforcement is required and calculate as:

Av

=

s

VS

274.27 1E6

=

= 1192.5 mm 2

f yt d

460 500

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load N*

= 2445 kN and moment My = 611 kN-m. This column is reinforced with 5 T25

bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and computed

result is compared. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

2445 kN

My= 611 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fc = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.994

1.00

0.60%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

fcu = 30 MPa

b = 350 mm

fy = 460 MPa

d = 490 mm

be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis fro a balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

600

600

dt =

( 490) = 277 mm

600 + f y

600 + 460

N * = Cc + C s T

where

Cc = 0.85 f c'ab = 0.85 30 350a = 8925a

T = As f s = 2500 f s ( f s < f y )

N * = 8,925a + 1,086, 250 - 2500 f s

(Eqn. 1)

a

'

Cc d - 2 + C s d - d

e' = e + d " = 250 + 215 = 465 mm

1

a

N* =

8,925a 490 - + 1,086, 250 ( 490 - 60 )

465

2

*

2

N = 9, 404.8a - 9.6a + 1,004, 489.2

N* =

1

e'

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a = 0.85 330 = 280.5 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

N * = 9, 404.8 280.5 - 9.6 ( 280.5) + 1,004, 489.2 = 2,887, 205.2 N

5) Calculate fs from the strain diagram when c = 330 mm.

490 - 330

fs =

600 = 290.9 MPa

330

s = t = f s Es = 0.00145

6) Substitute a = 280.5 mm and fs = 290.9 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N*2:

N 2* = 8,925 ( 280.5) + 1,086, 250 - 2500 ( 290.9 ) = 2,862, 462.5 N

Which is very close to the calculated Pr1 of 2,887,205.2 (less than 1% difference)

250

M * = N * e = 2877

= 719 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steels yield. From strain diagram,

330 - 60

s' =

( 0.003) = 0.00245 > y = 0.0023

330

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

N * = 0.85 2877 = 2445 kN

M * = 0.85 719 = 611 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

SHEAR AND FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF A SINGLY REINFORCED RECTANGLE

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

A simply supported beam is subjected to a uniform unfactored dead load and

imposed load of 25 and 19 kN/m respectively spanning 6m. This example is

tested using the Singapore CP65-99 concrete design code. The flexural and shear

reinforcing computed is compared with independent results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Dead Load=25kN/m

Live Load=19kN/m

CL

b=300mm

A

d=490 mm

300mm

300mm

6m

h=600 mm

Section A-A

Design Properties

fcu = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

fyv = 250 MPa

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF TESTED

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min

Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av

Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

The detailed work-out of the example above can be obtained from Example 3.4

of Chanakya Arya (1994). Design of Structural Elements. E & FN Spon, 54-55

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

294.30

294.30

0.00%

1555

1555

0.00%

160.23

160.23

0.00%

0.730

0.730

0.00 %

CONCLUSION

The computed flexural results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

m, steel

= 1.15

= 234.00 sq-mm

wu = =65.4 kN/m

wu l 2

= 294.3 kN-m

Mu =

8

Vu =

wu l

wu d = 160.23 kN

2

K=

M

= 0.108 < 0.156

f cu b d 2

beam.

Then the moment arm is computed as:

K

z = d 0.5 + 0.25

0.95d = 473.221 mm, where d=550 mm

0.9

As =

M

= 1555 sq-mm

( f y 1.15) z

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear Design

Vu = =160.23 kN at distance, d, from support

v=

V

= 0.9711 MPa

bw d

v vmax , so no concrete crushing

The shear stress carried by the concrete, vc, is calculated as:

1

vc =

= 0.4418 MPa

m bd d

k1 is the enhancement factor for support compression,

and is conservatively taken as 1 .

1

f 3

k2 = cu = 1.0, 1 k2

30

80

30

m = 1.25

0.15

100 As

3

bd

= 0.2842

=

bd

300 550

1

400 4

400

=

0.95 1, so

d

d

is taken as 1.

fcu 40 MPa (for calculation purposes only) and As is the area of tension

reinforcement.

If (vc + 0.4) < v vmax

Asv

=

sv

v vc ) bw ( 0.9711 0.4418 )

(=

0.87 f yv

0.87250

= 0.730 sq-mm/mm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete column is subjected to factored axial load N = 1971 kN

and moment My = 493 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five 25M bars. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the result is compared

with the calculated result. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

1971 kN

My = 493 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fcu = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

350 m

490 mm

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.994

1.00

0.60%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Column Strength under compression control

fcu = 30 MPa

b = 350 mm

fy = 460 MPa

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This

assumption will be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a

balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balanced condition:

=

cb

700

700

=

dt

=

( 490 ) 296 mm

700 + f y

700 + 460

N = Cc + C s T

where

0.67

=

Cc =

fcu ab 0.67 1.5 =

30 350a 4667 a

As

2500

Cs =

f y 0.4467 fcu ) = ( 460 0.4467 30 ) =

971, 014 N

(

s

1.15

Assume compression steel yields (this assumption will be checked later).

As fs 2500 fs

=

T =

= 2174 fs ( fs < f y )

s

1.15

N1 =4, 667 a + 971, 014 2174 fs

(Eqn. 1)

=

N

1

a

Cc d + C s ( d d )

e

2

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 215 mm

e =e + d =250 + 215 =465 mm

=

N

1

a

465

2

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a = 0.9 364 = 327.6 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

=

N 2 4917.9 327.6 5.018 ( 327.6 ) + 897,926

= 1,970,500 N

2

490 364

=

fs =

700 242.3 MPa

364

s =t =fs Es = 0.0012

6) Substitute a = 327.6 mm and fs = 242.3 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N1:

=

=

N1 4, 667 ( 327.6 ) + 971, 014 2174 ( 242.3

) 1,973,163 N

which is very close to the calculated N2 of 1,970,500 (less than 1% difference)

250

M = Ne = 1971

= 493 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steel yields. From strain diagram,

364 60

=

s

=

> y 0.0023

) 0.0029=

( 0.0035

364

Compression steel yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

N = 1971 kN

M = 493 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear and Flexural Reinforcement Design of a Singly Reinforced Rectangle

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

A simply supported beam is subjected to a uniform factored load of 36.67 kN/m.

This example is tested using the Turkish TS 500-2000 concrete design code. The

flexural and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

230mm

CL

550 mm

60 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

Material Properties

E=

25.000x106 kN/m2

=

0.2

Clear span,

Overall depth,

Width of beam,

Effective depth,

Concrete strength,

Yield strength of steel,

Concrete unit weight,

Modulus of elasticity,

Modulus of elasticity,

Poissons ratio,

Section Properties

d = 543.75 mm

L

h

b

d

fck

fyk

wc

Ec

Es

v

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

6000

550

230

490

30

420

0

25x103

2x105

0.2

Design Properties

fck = 30 MPa

fy = 420 MPa

mm

mm

mm

mm

MPa

MPa

kN/m3

MPa

MPa

-1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Calculation of flexural and shear reinforcement

Application of minimum flexural and shear reinforcement

RESULTS COMPARISON

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

165.02

165.02

0.00%

1022

1022

0.00%

110.0

110.0

0.00%

0.2415

0.2415

0.00%

Output Parameter

Design Moment, Md (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for the load combination:

f=

cd

f ck 30

= = 20

mc 1.5

=

f yd

f yk 420

= = 365

ms 1.15

cb =

cu Es

cu Es + f yd

d = 304.6 mm

k1 = 0.85 0.006 ( f ck 25 ) = 0.82 , 0.70 k1 0.85

where,

=

As ,min

0.8 f ctd

=

bd 315.5 mm 2

f yd

Where

=

f ctd

0.35 f cu 0.35 30

= = 1.278

mc

1.5

COMB1

d = 36.67 kN/m

d L2

Md =

= 36.67 62/8 = 165.02 kN-m

8

The depth of the compression block is given by:

a =

d

d2

2 Md

= 95.42 mm

0.85 fcd b

The area of tensile steel reinforcement is given by:

As =

Md

165E6

=

a

365 ( 490 95.41/ 2 )

f yd d

2

As = 1022 mm2

TS 500-2000 Example 001 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Shear Design

The shear demand is computed as:

Vd =

L

=110.0 kN at face of support for this example

2

=

Vmax 0.22

=

fcd Aw 496 kN

The nominal shear strength provided by concrete is computed as:

N

=

Vcr 0.65 fctd bd 1 + d

Ag

=

Vc 0.8

=

Vcr 74.9 kN

The shear reinforcement is computed as follows:

If Vd Vcr

f ctd

mm 2

Asw

=

=

b

0.3

0.2415

(min. controls)

f ywd

mm

s min

If Vcr Vd Vmax

Asw

=

s

Vd Vc )

(=

f ywd d

0.1962

mm 2

mm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete column is subjected to factored axial load N = 1908 kN

and moment My = 477 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five 25M bars. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the result is compared

with the computed result. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

1908 kN

My = 477 kN-m

550mm

3m

350mm

60 mm

Section A-A

Material Properties

Ec = 25x106 kN/m2

= 0.2

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Section Properties

Design Properties

b =

d =

fck = 25 MPa

fyk = 420 MPa

350 mm

550 mm

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.992

1.00

0.80%

CONCLUSION

The computed result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent

result.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Column Strength under compression control

fck = 25 MPa

b = 350 mm

d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 167.46 mm < (2/3)d = 326.67 mm, assume compression failure. This

assumption will be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a

balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

cb =

0.003 2x105

600

dt =

( 490 ) = 305 mm

5

0.003 2x10 + f yk

600 + 420 / 1.15

N = Cc + C s T

where

Cc = 0.85f ck ab = 0.85 25 / 1.5 350a = 4,958a

A

f 2500

Cs = s f yk 0.85 ck =

( 420 0.85 25 /1.5) =882, 246 N

s

c 1.15

Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).

A f

2500 f s

T= s s=

= 2174f s f s < f y

1.15

s

N1 =4,958a + 882, 246 2,174 fs

(Eqn. 1)

1

a

=

N

Cc d + C s ( d d )

e

2

e = e + d = 250 + 215 = 465 mm

1

a

=

N

4,958a 490 + 882, 246 ( 490 60 )

465

2

N2 =

5525a 5.3312a 2 + 815,840

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a = 0.85 358 = 304.6 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

N=

5525 304.6 5.3312 ( 304.6 ) + 815,840

= 1,907, 643 N

2

5) Calculate fs from the strain diagram when c = 359 mm.

490 358.3

=

f s =

600 220.2 > 420 MPa

358.3

s = t = f s Es = 0.0011

6) Substitute a = 304.6m and fs 221.2 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N1:

=

N1 4,958 ( 304.6 ) + 882, 246 2174 ( 220.2

=

) 1,907, 601 N

which is very close to the calculated N2 of 2,002,751 (less than 1% difference)

250

M = Ne = 1908

= 477 kN-m

1000

7) Check if compression steel yields. From strain diagram,

358 60

=

s

=

> y 0.0021

) 0.0025=

( 0.003

358

Compression steel yields, as assumed.

8) Therefore, section capacity is

N = 1908 kN

M = 477 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 735 k and

moments Muy = 1504 k-ft. This wall is reinforced with two #9 bars at each end

and #4 bars at 14.00 inches on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 5.20 in2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

3600 k/in2

0.2

1500 k/in2

Section Properties

tb = 12 in

h = 60 in

As1= As5

= 2-#9 (2.00 in^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-#4 (0.40 in^2)

Design Properties

f c = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.007

1.00

0.70%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

1) A value of e = 24.58 inch was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model. The values of M u and Pu were large enough to

produce a flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral

axis, c, was determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and

2 below were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

=

Cc 0.85

=

fcab 0.85=

4 12a 40.8a

T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5

A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5

(Eqn. 1)

=

Pn 2

1

a

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

where=

; Csn An ( f sn 0.85 f c) ; Tsn = f sn Asn ; and the bar strains

Cs1 A1 ( f s1 0.85 f c)=

are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 28

inch

e =e + d =24.54 + 28 =52.55 inch.

4) Using c = 30.1 inch (from iteration),

a = 0.85 30.1 = 25.58 inch

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c= 30.1 inch, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.003

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

0.003

c

= 0.0028; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

= 0.0014

f s 2 = 40.75 ksi

= 0.0000

f s 3 = 00.29 ksi

= 0.0014

f s 4 = 40.20 ksi

= 0.0028

f s 5 = 60.00 ksi

Substitute in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal gives,

Pn1 = 1035 k

Pn2 = 1035 k

M=

P=

n

ne

6) Determine if is tension controlled or compression controlled.

t = 0.00244 , y = 0.0021

for y < t < 0.005 ; =

0.005 t

= 0.712

0.005 y

( t c )

7) Calculate ,

Pn = 0.711(1035 ) =

735 kips

M n = 0.711( 2115 ) =

1504 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is

loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 2384 k and moments Mu3 = 9293k-ft. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are compared

with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

3600 k/in2

0.2

1500 k/in2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 8 in

h = 98 in

As1= As6 = 2-#10,2#6 (5.96 in^2)

As2, As3, As4 and As5 = 2-#6 (0.88 in^2)

f c = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.999

1.00

0.10%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength under compression and bending

1) A value of e = 46.78 inches was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu

were taken from the ETABS test model interaction diagram. The values of M u and

Pu were large enough to produce a flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one.

The depth to the neutral axis, c, was determined by iteration using an excel

spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn1 = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

=

Ccw 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 )

=

Ccf 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) )

=

Pn1 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 ) + 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) ) + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) +

A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc) + As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5 + As 6 fs 6

(Eqn. 1)

3) Taking moments about As6:

a tf

t f + Cs1 ( d d ) +

1 Ccf ( d - d ) + Ccw d

2

Pn 2 =

Cs 2 ( 4s ) + Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2s ) Ts 5 ( s )

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

where=

, Csn An ( fsn 0.85 fc) , Tsn = f sn Asn , and the bar strains

Cs1 A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc)=

are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section, d =

98 8

2

= 45 inches

e= e + d = 46.78 + 45 = 91.78 inches

4) Iterating on a value of c until equations 1 and 2 are equal c is found to be c = 44.58

inches.

=

a 0.85

=

c 0.85 =

44.58 37.89 inches

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 44.58 inches, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain,

then f s = f y :

cd '

s1 =

0.003

c

csd '

s 2 =

0.003

c

c 2s d '

s3 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s 4

s6

d c

d cs

=

s5

s6

d c

d c

s6 =

0.003

c

= 0.00273;=

f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

= 0.00152

fs2

= 44.07 ksi

= 0.00310

fs3

= 8.94 ksi

= 0.00090

fs4

= 26.2 ksi

= 0.00211

fs5

= 60.00 ksi

= 0.00333

fs6

= 60.00 ksi

Substituting the above values of the compression block depth, a, and the rebar

stresses into equations Eqn. 1 and Eqn. 2 give

Pn1 = 3148 k

Pn2 = 3148 k

3148(46.78) /12 = 12,273 k-ft

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

t = 0.00332 , y = 0.0021

for y < t < 0.005 ; =

0.005 t

= 0.757

0.005

y

( t c )

Pn = 0.757 ( 3148 ) =

2384 kips

9293 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 735 k and

moments Muy = 1,504 k-ft. This wall is reinforced with two #9 bars at each end

and #4 bars at 14.00 inches on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 5.20 in2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

3600 k/in2

0.2

1500 k/in2

Section Properties

tb = 12 in

h = 60 in

As1= As5

= 2-#9 (2.00 in^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-#4 (0.40 in^2)

ETABS

0

Design Properties

f c = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.007

1.00

0.70%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

1) A value of e = 24.58 inch was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model. The values of M u and Pu were large enough to

produce a flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral

axis, c, was determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and

2 below were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

=

Cc 0.85

=

fcab 0.85=

4 12a 40.8a

T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5

Pn1 =40.8a + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) +

A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5

(Eqn. 1)

=

Pn 2

1

a

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

where

; Csn An ( fsn 0.85 fc) ; Tsn = f sn Asn ; and the bar strains

=

Cs1 A ( f s1 0.85 f c)=

are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d = 28

inch

e =e + d =24.54 + 28 =52.55 inch.

4) Using c = 30.1 inch (from iteration),

a = 0.85 30.1 = 25.58 inches

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c= 30.1 inch, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

cd '

s1 =

0.003

c

csd '

s 2 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

87

c

ETABS

0

= 0.0028; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

= 0.0014

f s 2 = 40.75 ksi

= 0.0000

f s 3 = 00.29 ksi

= 0.0014

f s 4 = 40.20 ksi

= 0.0028

f s 5 = 60.00 ksi

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 1035 k

Pn2 = 1035 k

M=

P=

1035(24.54) /12 = 2116 k-ft

n

ne

6) Determine if is tension controlled or compression controlled.

t = 0.00244 , y = 0.0021

for y < t < 0.005 ; =

0.005 t

= 0.712

0.005 y

( t c )

7) Calculate ,

Pn = 0.711(1035 ) =

735 kips

M n = 0.711( 2115 ) =

1504 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is

loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 2384 k and moments Mu3 = 9293k-ft. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are compared

with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

3600 k/in2

0.2

1500 k/in2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 8 in

h = 98 in

As1= As6 = 2-#10,2#6 (5.96 in^2)

As2, As3, As4 and As5 = 2-#6 (0.88 in^2)

f c = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.999

1.00

0.10%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength under compression and bending

1) A value of e = 46.78 inches was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu

were taken from the ETABS test model interaction diagram. The values of M u and

Pu were large enough to produce a flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one.

The depth to the neutral axis, c, was determined by iteration using an excel

spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn1 = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

=

Ccw 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 )

Ccf 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) )

=

Cs =A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc)

T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5 + As6 f s6

=

Pn1 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 ) + 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) ) + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) +

A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc) + As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5 + As 6 fs 6

3) Taking moments about As6:

a tf

t f + Cs1 ( d d ) +

1 Ccf ( d d ) + Ccw d

2

Pn 2 =

Cs 2 ( 4s ) + Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2s ) Ts 5 ( s )

(Eqn. 1)

(Eqn. 2)

where=

, Csn An ( f sn 0.85 f c) , Tsn = f sn Asn , and the bar

Cs1 A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc)=

strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section, d

98 8

= 45 inches

=

2

e =e + d =46.78 + 45 =91.78 inches

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

inches.

a = 0.85 c=0.85 44.58 = 37.89 inches

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 44.58 inches, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain

then, f s = f y :

cd '

0.003

c

csd '

s2 =

0.003

c

c 2s d '

s3 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

s4 =

s6

d c

d cs

s5 =

s6

d c

d c

s6 =

0.003

c

s1 =

= 0.00273;=

f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

= 0.00152

f s 2 = 44.07 ksi

= 0.00310

f s 3 = 8.94 ksi

= 0.00090

f s 4 = 26.2 ksi

= 0.00211

f s 5 = 60.00 ksi

= 0.00333

f s 6 = 60.00 ksi

Substituting the above values of the compression block depth, a, and the rebar

stresses into equations Eqn. 1 and Eqn. 2 give

Pn1 = 3148 k

Pn2 = 3148 k

M=

P=

3148(46.78) /12 = 12,273 k-ft

n

ne

6) Determine if is tension controlled or compression controlled.

t = 0.00332 , y = 0.0021

for y < t < 0.005 ; =

0.005 t

= 0.757

0.005

( t c )

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Pn = 0.757 ( 3148 ) =

2384 kips

9, 293 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 735 k and

moments Muy = 1,504 k-ft. This wall is reinforced with two #9 bars at each end

and #4 bars at 14.00 inches on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 5.20 in2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

3600 k/in2

0.2

1500 k/in2

Section Properties

tb = 12 in

h = 60 in

As1= As5

= 2-#9 (2.00 in^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-#4 (0.40 in^2)

ETABS

0

Design Properties

f c = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.007

1.00

0.70%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL

1) A value of e = 24.58 inch was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model. The values of M u and Pu were large enough to

produce a flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral

axis, c, was determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and

2 below were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

=

Cc 0.85

=

fcab 0.85=

4 12a 40.8a

T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5

Pn1 =40.8a + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) +

A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5

(Eqn. 1)

=

Pn 2

1

a

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

where

; Csn An ( fsn 0.85 fc) ; Tsn = f sn Asn ; and the bar strains

=

Cs1 A ( f s1 0.85 f c)=

are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d = 28

inch

e =e + d =24.54 + 28 =52.55 inch.

4) Using c = 30.1 inch (from iteration),

a = 0.85 30.1 = 25.58 inches

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c= 30.1 inch, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

cd '

s1 =

0.003

c

csd '

s 2 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

87

c

ETABS

0

= 0.0028; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

= 0.0014

f s 2 = 40.75 ksi

= 0.0000

f s 3 = 00.29 ksi

= 0.0014

f s 4 = 40.20 ksi

= 0.0028

f s 5 = 60.00 ksi

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 1035 k

Pn2 = 1035 k

M=

P=

1035(24.54) /12 = 2116 k-ft

n

ne

6) Determine if is tension controlled or compression controlled.

t = 0.00244 , y = 0.0021

0.005 t

= 0.712

0.005 y

( t c )

7) Calculate ,

Pn = 0.711(1035 ) =

735 kips

M n = 0.711( 2115 ) =

1504 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is

loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 2384 k and moments Mu3 = 9293k-ft. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are compared

with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

3600 k/in2

0.2

1500 k/in2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 8 in

h = 98 in

As1= As6 = 2-#10,2#6 (5.96 in^2)

As2, As3, As4 and As5 = 2-#6 (0.88 in^2)

f c = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.999

1.00

0.10%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength under compression and bending

1) A value of e = 46.78 inches was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu

were taken from the ETABS test model interaction diagram. The values of M u and

Pu were large enough to produce a flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one.

The depth to the neutral axis, c, was determined by iteration using an excel

spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn1 = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

=

Ccw 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 )

=

Ccf 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) )

T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5 + As6 f s6

=

Pn1 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 ) + 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) ) + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) +

A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc) + As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5 + As 6 fs 6

3) Taking moments about As6:

a tf

t f + Cs1 ( d d ) +

1 Ccf ( d d ) + Ccw d

2

Pn 2 =

Cs 2 ( 4s ) + Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2s ) Ts 5 ( s )

(Eqn. 1)

(Eqn. 2)

where=

, Csn An ( f sn 0.85 f c) , Tsn = f sn Asn , and the bar

strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section, d

98 8

= 45 inches

=

2

e =e + d =46.78 + 45 =91.78 inches

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

inches.

a = 0.85 c=0.85 44.58 = 37.89 inches

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 44.58 inches, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain

then, f s = f y :

cd '

0.003

c

csd '

s2 =

0.003

c

c 2s d '

s3 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

s4 =

s6

d c

d cs

s5 =

s6

d c

d c

s6 =

0.003

c

s1 =

= 0.00273;=

f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

= 0.00152

f s 2 = 44.07 ksi

= 0.00310

f s 3 = 8.94 ksi

= 0.00090

f s 4 = 26.2 ksi

= 0.00211

f s 5 = 60.00 ksi

= 0.00333

f s 6 = 60.00 ksi

Substituting the above values of the compression block depth, a, and the rebar

stresses into equations Eqn. 1 and Eqn. 2 give

Pn1 = 3148 k

Pn2 = 3148 k

M=

P=

3148(46.78) /12 = 12,273 k-ft

n

ne

t = 0.00332 , y = 0.0021

for y < t < 0.005 ; =

0.005 t

= 0.757

0.005

y

( t c )

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Pn = 0.757 ( 3148 ) =

2384 kips

9, 293 k-ft.

M n = 0.757 (12, 273) =

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example. A reinforced masonry wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 556

k and moments Muy = 1331 k-ft. This wall is reinforced with two #9 bars at each

end and #4 bars at 14.00 inches on center each of face module (The reinforcing is

not aligned with the conventional masonry block spacing for calculation

convenience. The same excel spreadsheet used in other concrete examples was

used here). The total area of reinforcement is 5.20 in2. The design capacity ratio

is checked by hand calculations and the results are compared with ETABS

program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

2250 k/in2

0.2

750 k/in2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 12 in

h = 60 in

As1= As5

= 2-#9 (2.00 in^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-#4 (0.40 in^2)

f m = 2.5 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

Wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.014

1.00

1.40%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Column Strength under compression control

1) A value of e = 28.722 inches was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu

were taken from the ETABS test model. The values of M u and Pu were large enough

to produce a flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral

axis, c, was determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and

2 below were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =

1 fm ab =

0.8 2.5 12a =

24.0a

T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5

Pn1 =

24a + A1 ( fs1 0.8 fm ) + A2 ( fs 2 0.8 fm ) + A3 ( fs 3 0.8 fm ) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5

(Eqn. 1)

=

Pn 2

1

a

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) Ts 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

where=

; Csn An ( f sn 0.8 f m ) ; Tsn = f sn Asn ; and the bar strains

Cs1 A1 ( f s1 0.8 f m )=

are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d = 28

inch

e =e + d =28.722 + 28 =56.72 inch.

4) Using c = 32.04 inch (from iteration),

a = 0.80 332.04 = 25.64 inch

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0025 and c= 32.04 inch, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs = f y :

cd '

s1 =

0.0025

c

csd '

s 2 =

0.0025

c

c 2s d '

s3 =

0.0025

c

d cs

s 4 =

0.0025

c

d c

s5 =

0.0025

c

= 0.00207; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

= 0.00125

f s 2 = 36.30 ksi

= 0.00016

f s 3 = 4.62 ksi

= 0.00093

f s 4 = 27.10 ksi

= 0.00203

f s 5 = 58.70 ksi

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 618 k;

Pn2 = 618 k

618(28.72) /12 = 1479 k-ft

M=

P=

n

ne

6) Calculate ,

Pn = 0.9 ( 618 ) =

556 kips

M n = 0.9 (1479 ) =

1331 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is

loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 1496 k and moments Mu3 = 7387 k-ft. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results are

compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

G=

3600 k/in2

0.2

1500 k/in2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

tb = 8 in

h = 98 in

As1= As6 = 2-#10,2#6 (5.96 in^2)

As2, As3, As4 and As5 = 2-#6 (0.88 in^2)

f c = 4 k/in2

fy = 60 k/in2

Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.999

1.00

0.10%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength under compression and bending

1) A value of e = 59.24 inches was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu

were taken from the ETABS test model interaction diagram. The values of M u and

Pu were large enough to produce a flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one.

The depth to the neutral axis, c, was determined by iteration using an excel

spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn1 = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =

1 fm ab =

0.8 2.5 12a =

24.0a

Pn1 =

24a + A1 ( fs1 0.8 fm ) + A2 ( fs 2 0.8 fm ) +

(Eqn. 1)

A3 ( fs 3 0.8 fm ) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6

3) Taking moments about As6:

a tf

2

Pn 2 =

e

Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2s ) Ts 5 ( s )

+ Cs1 ( d d ') + Cs 2 ( 4s ) +

(Eqn. 2)

where=

Cs1 A1 ( f s1 0.8 f m )=

are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d = 45

inch

e =e + d =59.24 + 45 =104.24 inch.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

inches.

=

a 0.8

=

c 0.8 41.15

= 32.92 inches

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0025 and c = 41.15 inches, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain,

then f s = f y :

cd '

0.0025

c

csd '

s2 =

0.0025

c

c 2s d '

s3 =

0.0025

c

d c 2s

s4 =

s6

d c

d cs

s5 =

s6

d c

d c

s6 =

0.0025

c

s1 =

= 0.00226;=

f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

= 0.00116

f s 2 = 33.74 ksi

= 0.00007

f s 3 = 2.03 ksi

= 0.00102

f s 4 = 29.7 ksi

= 0.00212

f s 5 = 60.00 ksi

= 0.00321

f s 6 = 60.00 ksi

Substituting the above values of the compression block depth, a, and the rebar

stresses into equations Eqn. 1 and Eqn. 2 give

Pn1 = 1662 k

Pn2 = 1662 k

M=

P=

1662(41.15) /12 = 8208 k-ft

n

ne

6) Calculate the capacity,

Pn = 0.9 (1622 ) =

1496 kips

M n = 0.9 ( 8208 ) =

7387 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 3438 kN and

moments Muy = 2003 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

4

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d =

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.083

1.00

8.30%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 582.6 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

=

Cc 0.85

=

fcab 0.85 30

=

300a 7650a

Cs =

A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc)

T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5

Pn1 =

(Eqn. 1)

A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5

3) Taking moments about As5:

=

Pn 2

1

a

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ') + Cs 2 ( 3s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

where=

; Cs 2 A2 ( f s 2 0.85 f c) ; Cs 3 ( f s 3 0.85 f c) ;

Cs1 A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc)=

Ts 4 = f s 4 As 4 and the bar strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the

center of the section and d = 700mm

e =e + d =582.6 + 700 =1282.61 mm.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

0.84

1.05 0.007( f=

a = c = 0.84 821.7=690.2 mm, where=

c)

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 30 inch, the steel stresses and

strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then f s = f y :

cd '

s1 =

0.003

c

csd '

s 2 =

0.003

c

2

d

c

s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

0.003

c

= 0.0028; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.00 ksi

= 0.0015

f s 2 = 307.9 ksi

= 0.0003

f s 3 = 52.3 ksi

= 0.0010

f s 4 = 203.2 ksi

= 0.0023

f s 5 = 458.8 ksi

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 5289 kN

Pn2 = 5289 kN

M=

P=

5289(582.6) /1000000 = 3081 k-ft

n

ne

6) Calculate ,

Pn = 0.65 ( 5289 ) =

3438 kN

M n = 0.65 ( 3081) =

2003 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

11175 kN and moments Muy = 12564 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.082

1.00

8.20%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent result.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 1124.3 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for the pier, P1. Values

for M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc = 0.85 f c' ab = 0.85 30 300a = 7650a

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

Ccw 0.85 fc 200 ( a 200 )

=

Ccf = 0.85 fc ( 200 2500 )

Cs =A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc)

T = As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5 + As 6 fs 6

=

Pn1 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 ) + 0.85 fc ( 8 98 ) + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) +

A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc) + As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5 + As 6 fs 6

(Eqn. 1)

a tf

t f + Cs1 ( d d ) +

1 Ccf ( d d ') + Ccw d

2

Pn 2 =

Cs 2 ( 4s ) + Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2s ) Ts 5 ( s )

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

where=

, Csn An ( fsn 0.85 fc) , Tsn = fsn Asn , and the bar strains

Cs1 A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc)=

are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section, d

2500 200

= 1150 mm

=

2

e =e + d =1124.3 + 1150 =2274.3 mm

a=

1c =

0.85 1341.6 =

1140.4 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 1341.6 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.003

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.003

c

c 2s d

s3 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s 4

s 6

d c

d cs

=

s5

s 6

d c

d c

s 6 =

0.003

c

= 0.00278; fs =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

= 0.00199

f s 2 = 398.7 MPa

= 0.00121

f s 3 = 242.2 MPa

= 0.00080

f s 4 = 160.3 MPa

= 0.00158

f s 5 = 16.8 MPa

= 0.00237

f s 6 = 460.0 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give,

Pn1 = 17192 kN

Pn2 = 17192 kN

17192(1124.3) /1000000 = 19329 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

6) Calculate ,

=

Pn 0.65=

(17192 ) 11175 kN

=

M n 0.65 =

(19329 ) 12564 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 3246 kN and

moments Muy = 1969 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d =

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.997

1.00

0.30%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

f c = 30MPa

b = 300mm

fy = 460 MPa

h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

The distance to the neutral axis for a balanced condition, cb:

=

cb

700

700

=

dt

=

(1450 ) 922.7 mm

700 + f y / s

700 + 460 /1.15

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

=

Cc

0.67

0.67

=

=

30 300a 4020a

fcu ab

m

1.5

As1

0.67 As2

0.67 As3

0.67

fc +

fc +

fc

fs1

fs 2

fs 3

s

m

m

m

s

s

As 4

A

=

T

fs 4 + s 5 fs 5

s

s

Cs =

As1

0.67 As2

0.67

fc +

fc +

fs1

fs 2

s

m

m

s

As3

A

0.67 As 4

fc

fs 4 + s 5 fs 5

fs 3

s

m

s

s

Pn1 =

4709a +

(Eqn. 1)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Pn 2

=

a

1

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( d d s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

As1

As 2

As 3

0.67

0.67

0.67

; Cs 2

f c=

f c=

f c ;

f s1

fs2

; Cs 3

fs3

s

m

s

m

s

m

As 4

0.67

=

Ts 4

f c and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.

fs4

s

m

where

=

Cs1

e =e + d =606.5 + 700 =1306.5 mm.

4) Using c = 875.2 mm (from iteration), which is more than cb (722.7mm).

a=

1c =

0.9 875.2 =

787.7 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 643.6 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

cd '

s1 =

0.003

c

csd '

s 2 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

0.003

c

= 0.00330; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

= 0.00190

f s 2 = 380.1 MPa

= 0.00050

f s 3 = 100.1 MPa

= 0.00090

f s 4 = 179.8 MPa

= 0.00230

f s 5 = 459.7 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 3246 kN

Pn2 = 3246 kN

3246(606.5) /1000 = 1969 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

8368 kN and moments Muy = 11967 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Wall flexural demand/capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.001

1.00

0.10%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 1430 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

0.67

Ccw

fcu 200 ( a 200 )

=

m

0.67

Ccf =

fcu ( 200 2500 )

m

As1

0.67 As2

0.67 As3

0.67

fc +

fc +

fc

fs1

fs 2

fs 3

s

m

m

m

s

s

A

A

A

T = s4 f s4 + s5 f s5 + s6 f s6

s

s

s

Cs =

Pn1

=

A

0.67

0.67

0.67

fcu 200 ( a 200 ) +

fcu ( 200 2500 ) + s1 fs1

fc

m

m

s

m

(Eqn. 1)

As2

As 5

As 6

0.67 As3

0.67 As 4

fc +

fc

fs 4 +

fs 5 +

fs 6

+

fs 2

fs 3

s

m

m

s

s

s

s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a tf

tf

1 Ccf ( d d ) + Ccw d

2

Pn 2 =

e

+Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2 s ) Ts 5 ( s )

+ Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 4 s )

(Eqn. 2)

As1

Asn

Asn

0.67

0.67

0.67

f c=

f c=

f c

f s1

; Csn

f sn

; Tsn

f sn

s

m

s

m

s

m

where

=

Cs1

e =e + d =1430 + 1150 =2580 mm.

4) Using c = 1160 mm (from iteration),

a=

1c =

0.9 1160 =

1044 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 1160 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

cd '

s1 =

0.0035

c

csd '

s 2 =

0.0035

c

c 2s d '

s3 =

0.0035

c

d c 2s

=

s 4

s6

d c

d cs

=

s5

s6

d c

d c

s6 =

0.0035

c

= 0.00320; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

= 0.00181

f s 2 = 362.0 MPa

= 0.00042

f s 3 = 84.4 MPa

= 0.00097

f s 4 = 193.2 MPa

= 0.00235

f s 5 = 460.00 MPa

= 0.00374

f s 6 = 460.00 MPa

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 8368 kN

Pn2 = 8368 kN

8368(1430) /1000 = 11,967 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete column is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 3870 kN

and moments Muy = 2109 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at

each end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

4

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d =

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Flexural Demand/Capacity ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.986

1.00

-1.40%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

f c = 30MPa

b = 300mm

fy = 460 MPa

h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

The distance to the neutral axis for a balanced condition, cb:

=

cb

700

700

=

dt

=

(1450 ) 875 mm

700 + f y

700 + 460

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc = c 1 fcab = 0.65 0.805 30 300a = 4709a

T = s As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5

=

Pn1 4709a + A1 ( fs1 0.805 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.805 fc) As 3 fs 3 As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 (Eqn. 1)

3) Taking moments about As5:

=

Pn 2

1

a

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( d d s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

Ts 4 = s f s 4 As 4 and the bar strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the

center of the section and d = 700 mm

e =e + d =545 + 700 =1245 inch.

a = 1c = 0.895 894.5 = 800.6 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 643.6 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

cd '

s1 =

0.003

c

csd '

s 2 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

0.0035

c

= 0.00330; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

= 0.00193

f s 2 = 387.0 MPa

= 0.00057

f s 3 = 113.1 MPa

= 0.00080

f s 4 = 160.8 MPa

= 0.00217

f s 5 = 434.7 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 3870 kN

Pn2 = 3870 kN

M=

P=

3870(545) / 1000 = 2109 kN-m

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

10687 kN and moments Muy = 13159 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.994

1.00

0.40%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

WALL STRENGTH DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:

f c = 30MPa

b = 300mm

fy = 460 MPa

h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for the pier, P1. Values

for M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc = c 1 f cab = 0.65 0.805 30 300a = 4709a

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

Ccw = c 1 f c200 ( a - 200 )

Ccf = c 1 f c ( 2002500 )

T = s As 4 fs 4 + s As 5 fs 5 + s As 6 fs 6

Pn1 = c 1 fc 200 ( a 200 ) + c 1 fc ( 200 2500 ) + s As1 ( fs1 1c fc) +

s As2 ( fs 2 1c fc) + s As3 ( fs 3 1c fc) s As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6

(Eqn. 1)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a tf

t f + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 4 s ) +

1 Ccf ( d d ) + Ccw d

2

(Eqn. 2)

Pn 2 =

Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2 s ) Ts 5 ( s )

where Cs1 = s As1 ( fs1 1c fc) ; Csn = s Asn ( fsn 1c fc) ; Ts 4 = s fsn Asn and the bar

strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and

d = 700 mm

e =e + d =1231.3 + 1050 =2381.3 inch.

4) Using c = 1293.6 mm (from iteration),

a=

1c =

0.895 1293.6 =

1157.8 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0030 and c = 1293.6 mm, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain,

then f s = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.0035

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.0035

c

c 2s d

s3 =

0.0035

c

d c 2s

=

s 4

s 6

d c

d cs

=

s5

s 6

d c

d c

s5 =

0.0035

c

= 0.00323; fs =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

= 0.00198

f s 2 = 397.0 MPa

= 0.00074

f s 3 = 148.1 MPa

= 0.00175

f s 4 = 100.9 MPa

= 0.00299

f s 5 = 349.8 MPa

= 0.00230

f s 6 = 460.0 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 10687 kN

Pn2 = 10687 kN

M=

P=

10687(1231.3) /1000000 = 13159 kN-m

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete column is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 3870 kN

and moments Muy = 2109 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at

each end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

tb = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d =

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Flexural Demand/Capacity ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.986

1.00

-1.40%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

f c = 30MPa

b = 300mm

fy = 460 MPa

h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

The distance to the neutral axis for a balanced condition, cb:

=

cb

700

700

=

dt

=

(1450 ) 875 mm

700 + f y

700 + 460

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc = c 1 fcab = 0.65 0.805 30 300a = 4709a

T = s As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5

=

Pn1 4709a + A1 ( fs1 0.805 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.805 fc) As 3 fs 3 As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 (Eqn. 1)

3) Taking moments about As5:

=

Pn 2

1

a

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( d d s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Ts 4 = s f s 4 As 4 and the bar strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the

center of the section and d = 700 mm

e =e + d =545 + 700 =1245 inch.

a = 1c = 0.895 894.5 = 800.6 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 643.6 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

cd '

s1 =

0.003

c

csd '

s 2 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

0.0035

c

= 0.00330; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

= 0.00193

f s 2 = 387.0 MPa

= 0.00057

f s 3 = 113.1 MPa

= 0.00080

f s 4 = 160.8 MPa

= 0.00217

f s 5 = 434.7 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 3870 kN

Pn2 = 3870 kN

M=

P=

3870(545) / 1000 = 2109 kN-m

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

10687 kN and moments Muy = 13159 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

tb = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.994

1.00

0.40%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

WALL STRENGTH DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:

f c = 30MPa

b = 300mm

fy = 460 MPa

h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for the pier, P1. Values

for M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

Ccw = c 1 f c200 ( a - 200 )

Ccf = c 1 f c ( 2002500 )

T = s As 4 fs 4 + s As 5 fs 5 + s As 6 fs 6

Pn1 = c 1 fc 200 ( a 200 ) + c 1 fc ( 200 2500 ) + s As1 ( fs1 1c fc) +

s As2 ( fs 2 1c fc) + s As3 ( fs 3 1c fc) s As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6

(Eqn. 1)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a tf

t f + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 4 s ) +

1 Ccf ( d d ) + Ccw d

2

(Eqn. 2)

Pn 2 =

Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2 s ) Ts 5 ( s )

where Cs1 = s As1 ( fs1 1c fc) ; Csn = s Asn ( fsn 1c fc) ; Ts 4 = s fsn Asn and the bar

strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and

d = 700 mm

e =e + d =1231.3 + 1050 =2381.3 inch.

4) Using c = 1293.6 mm (from iteration),

1c =

a=

0.895 1293.6 =

1157.8 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0030 and c = 1293.6 mm, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain,

then f s = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.0035

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.0035

c

c 2s d

s3 =

0.0035

c

d c 2s

=

s 4

s 6

d c

d cs

=

s5

s 6

d c

d c

s5 =

0.0035

c

= 0.00323; fs =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

= 0.00198

f s 2 = 397.0 MPa

= 0.00074

f s 3 = 148.1 MPa

= 0.00175

f s 4 = 100.9 MPa

= 0.00299

f s 5 = 349.8 MPa

= 0.00230

f s 6 = 460.0 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 10687 kN

Pn2 = 10687 kN

M=

P=

10687(1231.3) /1000000 = 13159 kN-m

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 4340 kN and

moments Muy = 2503 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d=

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Concrete wall flexural demand/capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.993

1.00

0.70%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

f c = 30MPa

b = 300mm

fy = 460 MPa

h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

The distance to the neutral axis for a balanced condition, cb:

=

cb

700

700

=

dt

=

(1450 ) 922.7 mm

700 + f y / s

700 + 460 /1.15

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

cc fck

1.0 30

=

Cc =

ab

=

300a 6000a

m

1.5

cc fck

As1

fs1

s

m

As 4

A

=

T

fs 4 + s 5 fs 5

s

s

Cs =

Pn1 =6000a +

As 2

cc fck

+

fs 2

m

s

As1

cc fck

fs1

s

m

As 3

cc fck

fs 3

s

m

As 3

cc fck

+

fs 3

m

s

As 2

cc fck

+

fs 2

m

s

As 4

A

fs 4 s 5 fs 5

s

s

(Eqn. 1)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Pn 2

=

a

1

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

where

Cs1

=

Ts 4 =

ETABS

0

(Eqn. 2)

As 2

cc f ck

As1

As 3

cc f ck

cc fck

=

=

fs3

;

fs2

; Cs 3

fs1

; Cs 2

s

m

s

m

s

m

As 4

( f s 4 ) and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.

s

e =e + d =576.73 + 700 =1276.73 mm.

4) Using c = 885.33 mm (from iteration), which is more than cb (922.7mm).

a = 1c = 0.80 885.33=708.3 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 885.33 mm, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain,

then f s = f y :

c d

s1 =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

0.0035 = 0.00330; f s =

c

c s d

s 2 =

f s 2 = 383.7 MPa

0.0035 = 0.00192

c

d c 2s

=

s3

f s 3 = 107.0 MPa

s 5 = 0.00054

d c

d cs

= 0.00085

f s 4 = 169.7 MPa

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

= 0.00223

f s 5 = 446.5 MPa

0.0035

c

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 4340 kN

Pn2 = 4340 kN

M=

P=

4340(708.3) /1000 = 2503 kN-m

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu =

11605 kN and moments Muy = 15342 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

Design Properties

tb = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Concrete wall flexural demand/capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.011

1.00

1.10%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 1322 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

Where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

cc fck

0.85 30

200 ( a 200 )=

200 ( a 200 )= 3400(a 200)

Ccw=

m

1.5

cc fck

0.85(30)

=

200 ( 2500

=

1000 ) )

1000 ) ) 5,100, 000

Ccf

(

( 200 ( 2500=

m

1.5

f

f

Cs =A1 fs1 cc ck + A2 fs 2 cc ck

m

m

f

f

f

T = As 4 s 4 + As 5 s 4 + As 6 s 4

s

s

s

+

cc fck

As 3

fs 3

s

m

cc fck

+ A3 fs 3

As1

cc fck

fs1

s

m

As 2

cc fck

+

fs 2

m

s

As 4

A

A

fs 4 s 5 fs 5 s 6 fs 6

s

s

s

(Eqn. 1)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

a tf

tf + Cs1 ( d - d' ) +

1 Ccf ( d - d' ) + Ccw d 2

Pn2 =

e

Cs2 ( 4s ) + Cs3 ( 3s ) Ts4 ( 2s ) Ts5 ( s )

=

Cs1

where

Ts 4 =

(Eqn. 2)

cc f ck

As1

cc f ck

As 2

As 3

cc f ck

=

=

fs2

; Cs 3

fs3

f s1

; Cs 2

s

m

s

m

s

m

As 4

( f s 4 ) and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.

s

e =e + d =1322 + 700 =2472 mm.

4) Using c = 1299 mm (from iteration),

a=

1c =

0.895 1299 =

1163 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 1299 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.0035

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.0035

c

c 2s d

s3 =

0.0035

c

d c 2s

=

s 4

s6

d c

d cs

=

s5

s6

d c

d c

s6 =

0.0035

c

= 0.00323; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

= 0.00199

f s 2 = 398.2 MPa

= 0.00075

f s 3 = 150.3 MPa

= 0.00049

f s 4 = 97.5 MPa

= 0.00173

f s 5 = 345.4 MPa

= 0.00297

f s 6 = 460.00 MPa

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 11605 kN

Pn2 = 11605 kN

M=

P=

11605(1322) /1000 = 15342 kN-m

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 3246 kN and

moments Muy = 1969 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

Design Properties

tb = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d =

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Flexural Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.997

1.00

0.30%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

f c = 30MPa

b = 300mm

fy = 460 MPa

h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

The distance to the neutral axis for a balanced condition, cb:

=

cb

700

700

=

dt

=

(1450 ) 922.7 mm

700 + f y / s

700 + 460 /1.15

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =

0.67

0.67

f cu ab =

30 300a = 4020a

1.5

m

As1

0.67 As2

0.67 As3

0.67

fc +

fc +

fc

fs1

fs 2

fs 3

s

m

m

m

s

s

A

A

T = s4 f s4 + s5 f s5

s

s

Cs =

As1

0.67 As2

0.67 '

fc +

fc +

fs1

fs 2

s

m

m

s

As3

A

0.67 As 4

fc

fs 4 + s 5 fs 5

fs 3

s

m

s

s

Pn1 =4709a +

(Eqn. 1)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

Pn 2

=

a

1

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( d d s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

As1

As 2

As 3

0.67

0.67

0.67

; Cs 2

f c=

f c=

f ;

f s1

fs2

; Cs 3

fs3

s

m

s

m

s

m c

As 4

0.67

=

Ts 4

f and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.

fs4

s

m c

where

=

Cs1

e =e + d =606.5 + 700 =1306.5 mm.

4) Using c = 875.2 mm (from iteration), which is slightly more than cb (922.7 mm).

a = 1c = 0.9 875.2=787.68 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 875.2 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.0035

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.0035

c

d c 2s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

0.0035

c

=0.00330; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

=0.00190

f s 2 = 380.1 MPa

=0.00050

f s 3 = 100.1 MPa

=0.00090

f s 4 = 179.8 MPa

=0.00230

f s 5 = 459.7 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 3246 kN

Pn2 = 3246 kN

3246(606.5) /1000 = 1969 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

8368 kN and moments Muy = 11967 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

tb = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Concrete wall flexural demand/capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.001

1.00

0.10%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 1430 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for the pier, P1. Values

for M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

0.67

=

Ccw

fcu 200 ( a 200 )

m

0.67

Ccf =

fcu ( 200 2500 )

m

As1

0.67 As2

0.67 As3

0.67

fc +

fc +

fc

fs1

fs 2

fs 3

s

m

m

m

s

s

A

A

A

T = s 4 fs 4 + s 5 fs 5 + s 6 fs 6

s

s

s

Cs =

=

Pn1

A

0.67

0.67

0.67

fcu 200 ( a 200 ) +

fcu ( 200 2500 ) + s1 fs1

fc +

m

m

s

m

(Eqn. 1)

As2

As 5

As 6

0.67 As3

0.67 As 4

fc +

fc

fs 4 +

fs 5 +

fs 6

fs 2

fs 3

s

m

m

s

s

s

s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a tf

tf

1 Ccf ( d d ) + Ccw d

2

Pn 2 =

e

Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2 s ) Ts 5 ( s )

+ Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 4 s ) +

(Eqn. 2)

As1

Asn

Asn

0.67

0.67

0.67

; Tsn

f c=

f c=

f c

f s1

; Csn

f sn

f sn

s

m

s

m

s

m

where

=

Cs1

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 1150 mm

e =e + d =1430 + 1150 =2580 mm.

4) Using c = 1160 mm (from iteration),

a=

1c =

0.9 1160 =

1044 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c= 1160 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.0035

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.0035

c

c 2s d

s3 =

0.0035

c

d c 2s

=

s 4

s6

d c

d cs

=

s5

s6

d c

d c

s6 =

0.0035

c

= 0.00320; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

= 0.00181

f s 2 = 362.0 MPa

= 0.00042

f s 3 = 84.4 MPa

= 0.00097

f s 4 = 193.2 MPa

= 0.00235

f s 5 = 460.00 MPa

= 0.00374

f s 6 = 460.00 MPa

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 8368 kN

Pn2 = 8368 kN

8368(1430) /1000 = 11,967 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected factored axial load Pu = 3146 kN and

moments Muy = 1875 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

tb = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d =

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Concrete wall flexural demand/capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.035

1.00

3.50%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

F c = 30MPa

b = 300mm

fy = 460 MPa

h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for the pier, P1. Values

for M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

0.36

f ck ab = 0.4286 30 300a = 3857 a , where a = 0.84 xu

0.84

A

A

A

Cs =s1 ( fs1 0.4286 fc) + s 2 ( fs 2 0.4286 fc) + s 3 ( fs 3 0.4286 fc)

s

s

s

A

A

T = s4 f s4 + s5 f s5

Cc =

3857 a +

Pn1 =

As1

A

( fs1 0.4286 fc) + s 2 ( fs 2 0.4286 fc) +

s

s

As3

A

A

fs 3 0.4286 fc' ) s 4 fs 4 + s 5 fs 5

(

s

s

s

(Eqn. 1)

=

Pn 2

1

a

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( d d s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

As1

As 2

) ; C s 2

( f s1 0.4286 f c=

( f s 2 0.4286 f c) ;

s

s

A

As 3

=

Cs 3

( f s 3 0.4286 f c) ; Ts 4 = s 4 ( f s 4 ) and the bar strains and stresses are

s

s

determined below.

where

=

Cs1

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 700 mm

e =e + d =596 + 700 =1296 mm.

4) Using c = 917.3 mm (from iteration)

a=

1c =

0.84 917.3 =

770.5 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 917.3 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

cd '

= 0.00331;=

f s s E Fy ;

0.0035

c

csd '

s2 =

0.0035 = 0.00197

c

c 2s d '

s3 =

0.0035 = 0.00064

c

d cs

= 0.00070

s4 =

s5

d c

d c

= 0.00203

s5 =

0.0035

c

s1 =

f s1 = 460 MPa

f s 2 = 394.8 MPa

f s 3 = 127.7 MPa

f s 4 = 139.4 MPa

f s 5 = 406.5 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 3146 kN

Pn2 = 3146 kN

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

FRAME P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu= 8426

kN and moments Muy= 11670 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted below.

The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are

compared with ETABS program.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

tb = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Concrete Wall Demand/Capacity Ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.003

1.00

0.30%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show a very close match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

WALL STRENGTH DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:

1) A value of e = 1385 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were taken

from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for the pier, P1. Values for M u and

Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a flexural D/C ratio

very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was determined by iteration

using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

0.36

Ccw =

f ck 200 ( a - 200 ) , where a = 0.84x u

0.84

0.36

Ccf =

f ck 200 ( 2500-1000 )

0.84

A'

0.36 As2'

0.36 As3'

0.36

Cs = s1 f s1 f ck +

f

f ck +

f s3 f ck

s2

0.84 s

0.84 s

0.84

s

A

A

A

T = s4 f s4 + s5 f s5 + s6 f s6

As1'

0.36

0.36

0.36 As2'

0.36

Pn1 =

f ck 200 ( a - 200 ) +

f ck 200 ( 2500-1000 ) +

f s1 f ck +

f s2 f ck

0.84

0.84

0.84 s

0.84

s

+

As3'

A

A

0.36 As4

f s3 f ck f s4 s5 f s5 s6 f s6

0.84 s

s

s

s

(Eqn. 1)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Pn2 =

a tf

(Eqn. 2)

A'

A'

A

0.36

0.36

Where Cs1 = s1 f s1 f ck ; Ts 4 = sn ( f sn ) and the bar

f ck ; Cs 2 = sn f sn 0.84

s

s

0.84

s

strains and stresses are determined below.

1

e'

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 1150 mm

e' = e + d " = 1138 +1150 = 2535 mm.

a = 1c = 0.84 1298.1=1090.4 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c= 1298.1 mm, the steel stresses and

strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then, f s = f y :

cd '

0.003

c

csd '

s2 =

0.0035

c

c 2s d '

s3 =

0.0035

c

d c 2s

s4 =

s5

d c

d cs

s5 =

s5

d c

d c

s6 =

0.0035

c

s1 =

=0.00323;=

f s s E Fy ;

f s1 = 460 MPa

=0.00199

f s 2 = 398.0 MPa

=0.00075

f s 3 = 150.0 MPa

=0.00049

f s 4 = 98.1 MPa

=0.00173

f s 5 = 346.1 MPa

=0.00297

f s 6 = 460.0 MPa

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Substitute in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the two equations

are equal gives,

Pn1 = 8426 kN

Pn2 = 8426 kN

8426(1385) /1000 = 11670 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 4549 kN and

moments Muy = 2622 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

t = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d=

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm2)

f ck = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Flexural Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.002

1.00

0.2%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 576.2 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

=

Cc 0.85

=

f ck ab 0.85 30

=

300a 7650a

Cs =

A1 ( f s1 0.85 f ck ) + A2 ( f s 2 0.85 f ck ) + A3 ( f s 3 0.85 f ck )

T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5

Pn1 =

7650a + A1 ( f s1 0.85 f ck ) + A2 ( f s 2 0.85 f ck ) +

(Eqn. 1)

A3 ( f s 3 0.85 f ck ) As 4 f s 4 As 5 f s 5

3) Taking moments about As5:

=

Pn 2

1

a

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

where=

; Cs 2 A2 ( f s 2 0.85 f ck ) ; Cs 3 ( f s 3 0.85 f ck ) ;

Cs1 A1 ( f s1 0.85 f ck )=

Ts 4 = f s 4 As 4 and the bar strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the

center of the section and d = 700mm

e =e + d =576.2 + 700 =1276.4 mm.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a = 1c = 0.836 833.27=696.61 mm,

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c= 833.27 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.003

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.003

c

c 2s d '

s3 =

0.003

c

d cs

s 4 =

0.003

d c

d c

s5 =

0.003

c

= 0.0028; f s =

s E Fy ;

f s1 = 460.00 MPa

= 0.0016

f s 2 = 312.0 MPa

= 0.0003

f s 3 = 60.0 MPa

= 0.00103

f s 4 = 259.5 MPa

= 0.0022

f s 5 = 444.1 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 5340 kN

Pn2 = 5340 kN

M=

P=

5340(576.4) /1000 = 3078 kN-m

n

ne

6) Calculate ,

Pn = 0.65 ( 5340 ) =

3471 kN

M n = 0.65 ( 3078 ) =

2000.7 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

11256 kN and moments Muy = 1498 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

t = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm2)

f ck = 30 MPa

fy = 420 MPa

Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.007

1.00

0.7%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS result shows a very close match with the independent result.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 1199.2 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for the pier, P1. Values

for M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

=

Ccw 0.85 f ck 200 ( a 200 )

Ccf = 0.85 f ck ( 200 1500 )

Cs =A1 ( f s1 0.85 f ck ) + A2 ( f s 2 0.85 f ck ) + A3 ( f s 3 0.85 f ck )

T = As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5 + As 6 fs 6

=

Pn1 0.85 f ck 200 ( a 200 ) + 0.85 f ck ( 200 1500 ) + A1 ( f s1 0.85 f ck ) +

A2 ( f s 2 0.85 f ck ) + A3 ( f s 3 0.85 f ck ) + As 4 f s 4 + As 5 f s 5 + As 6 f s 6

(Eqn. 1)

3) Taking moments about As6:

a tf

t f + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 4s ) +

1 Ccf ( d d ) + Ccw d

2

Pn 2 =

(Eqn. 2)

e

Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2s ) Ts 5 ( s )

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

where=

, Csn An ( f sn 0.85 f ck ) , Tsn = fsn Asn , and the bar

Cs1 A1 ( f s1 0.85 f ck )=

strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section, d

2500 200

= 1150 mm

=

2

e =e + d =1199.2 + 1150 =2349.2 mm

4) Using c = 1480 mm (from iteration),

a=

1c =

0.836 1480 =

1237.28 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 1480 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.003

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.003

c

c 2s d

s3 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s 4

s 6

d c

d cs

=

s5

s 6

d c

d c

s 6 =

0.003

c

= 0.0028; fs =

s E Fy ;

f s1 = 420.0 MPa

= 0.00186

f s 2 = 373.0 MPa

= 0.00093

f s 3 = 186.5 MPa

= 0.0000

f s 4 = 0.0 MPa

= 0.00093

f s 5 = 186.5 MPa

= 0.00272

f s 6 = 373.0 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

axial force from two equations are less than 1%

Pn1 = 13232 kN

Pn2 = 13250 kN , use average Pn = 13242 kN

M=

P=

13242(1199.2) /1000 = 15879.8 kN-m

n

ne

6) Calculate ,

=

Pn 0.85=

(13242 ) 11256 kN

=

M n 0.85 (=

15879.8 ) 13498 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load Pu = 3545 kN and

moments Muy = 1817 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d=

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Flexural Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.016

1.00

1.60%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

f c = 30MPa

b = 300mm

fy = 460 MPa

h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

=

=

=

Cc 0.85

fc*ab 0.85 0.8 30

300a 6120a

Cs =

A1 ( fs1 0.85 0.8 fc* ) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 0.8 fc* ) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 0.8 fc* )

T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5

Pn1 =+

6120a A1 ( fs1 0.85 0.8 fc* ) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 0.8 fc* ) +

A3 ( fs 3 0.85 0.8 fc* ) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5

(Eqn. 1)

=

Pn 2

1

a

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

where=

; Cs 2 A2 ( f s 2 0.85 0.8 f c* ) ;

Cs1 A1 ( fs1 0.85 0.8 fc* )=

Cs 3 ( f s 3 0.85 0.8 f c* ) ; Ts 4 = f s 4 As 4 and the bar strains are determined below. The

e =e + d =512.5 + 700 =1212.5 mm.

4) Using c = 936.2 mm (from iteration)

a =c =0.85 916.2 =805 mm,

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 936.2 inch, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.003

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

0.003

c

= 0.0028; f s =

s E Fy ;

f s1 = 460.00 MPa

= 0.0017

f s 2 = 343.6 MPa

= 0.0005

f s 3 = 119.3 MPa

= 0.0060

f s 4 = 105.4 MPa

= 0.0175

f s 5 = 329.3 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 5064 kN

Pn2 = 5064 kN

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

7) Calculate Pn and, M n ,

Pn = 0.70 ( 5064 ) =

3545 kips

M n = 0.70 ( 2595 ) =

1817 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is

loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 10165 kN and moments Mu3 = 11430 kNm. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are

compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

tb = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.000

1.00

0.000%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 1124.4 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for the pier, P1. Values

for M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

=

Ccw 0.85 0.8 fc 200 ( a 200 )

Ccf = 0.85 0.8 fc ( 200 1500 )

Cs =

A1 ( fs1 0.85 0.8 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 0.8 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 0.8 fc)

=

Pn1 0.85 0.8 fc 200 ( a 200 ) + 0.85 0.8 fc ( 200 1500 ) + A1 ( fs1 0.85 0.8 fc)

+ A2 ( fs 2 0.85 0.8 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 0.8 fc) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6

(Eqn. 1)

3) Taking moments about As6:

a tf

t f + Cs1 ( d d ) +

1 Ccf ( d d ) + Ccw d

2

Pn 2 =

Cs 2 ( 4s ) + Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2s ) Ts 5 ( s )

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

where

, Csn An ( f sn 0.85 0.8 f c) , Tsn = f sn Asn , and the

=

Cs1 A1 ( f s1 0.85 0.8 f c)=

bar strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section,

2500 200

= 1150 mm

d =

2

e' = e + d " = 1124.4 +1150 = 2274.4 mm

4) Using c = 1413 mm (from iteration)

a = 0.85c = 0.85 1413=1201 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 1413 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs = f y :

cd '

0.003

c

csd '

s2 =

0.003

c

c 2s d '

s3 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

s4 =

s6

d c

d cs

s5 =

s6

d c

d c

s6 =

0.003

c

s1 =

= 0.00279;=

f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

= 0.00181

f s 2 = 362.2 MPa

= 0.00083

f s 2 = 166.8 MPa

= 0.00014

f s 3 = 28.6 MPa

= 0.00112

f s 4 = 223.9 MPa

= 0.00210

f s 5 = 419.3 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 14522 kN

Pn2 = 14522 kN

14522(1124.4) /1000000 = 16328 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

6) Calculate Pn and M n ,

=

Pn 0.70=

(14522 ) 10165 kN

=

M n 0.70 (=

16382 ) 11430 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 4549 kN and

moments Muy = 2622 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

Section Properties

tb = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d=

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Flexural Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.000

1.00

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 576.2 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

=

Cc 0.85

=

fcab 0.85 30

=

300a 7650a

Cs =

A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc)

T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5

Pn1 =

7650a + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) +

A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5

(Eqn. 1)

=

Pn 2

1

a

Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

e

2

(Eqn. 2)

where=

; Cs 2 A2 ( f s 2 0.85 f c) ; Cs 3 ( f s 3 0.85 f c) ;

Cs1 A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc)=

Ts 4 = f s 4 As 4 and the bar strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the

center of the section and d = 700mm

e =e + d =576.2 + 700 =1276.4 mm.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c= 821.7 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.003

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.003

c

d

c

s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

0.003

c

= 0.0028; f s =

s E Fy ;

f s1 = 460.00 MPa

= 0.0015

f s 2 = 307.9 MPa

= 0.0003

f s 3 = 52.3 MPa

= 0.0010

f s 4 = 203.2 MPa

= 0.0023

f s 5 = 458.8 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 5352 kN

Pn2 = 5352 kN

5352(576.4) /1000000 = 3085 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

6) Calculate ,

Pn = 0.85 ( 5352 ) =

4549 kN

M n = 0.85 ( 3085 ) =

2622 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

13625 kN and moments Muy = 16339 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

tb = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.000

1.00

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS result shows a very close match with the independent result.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 1199.2 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for the pier, P1. Values

for M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

=

Cc 0.85

=

fcab 0.85 30

=

300a 7650a

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

=

Ccw 0.85 fc 200 ( a 200 )

Ccf = 0.85 fc ( 200 2500 )

T = As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5 + As 6 fs 6

=

Pn1 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 ) + 0.85 fc ( 8 98 ) + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) +

A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc) + As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5 + As 6 fs 6

(Eqn. 1)

a tf

C

d

d

+

C

d

t

+

C

d

d

+

C

4

s

+

(

)

(

)

(

)

1 cf

cw

f

s1

s2

2

Pn 2 =

(Eqn. 2)

e

Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2s ) Ts 5 ( s )

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

where=

, Csn An ( fsn 0.85 fc) , Tsn = fsn Asn , and the bar strains

Cs1 A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc)=

are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section, d

2500 200

= 1150 mm

=

2

e =e + d =1199.2 + 1150 =2349.2 mm

4) Using c = 1259.8 mm (from iteration),

a=

1c =

0.85 1259.8 =

1070.83 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 1259.8 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.003

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.003

c

c 2s d

s3 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s 4

s 6

d c

d cs

=

s5

s 6

d c

d c

s 6 =

0.003

c

= 0.00276; fs =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

= 0.00167

f s 2 = 333.3 MPa

= 0.00057

f s 3 = 114.2 MPa

= 0.00052

f s 4 = 104.9 MPa

= 0.00167

f s 5 = 324.0 MPa

= 0.00272

f s 6 = 460.0 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 16029 kN

Pn2 = 16029 kN

16029(1199.2) /1000000 = 19222 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

6) Calculate ,

=

Pn 0.85=

(16029 ) 13625 kN

=

M n 0.85 (=

19222 ) 16339 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected factored axial load Pu = 3246 kN and

moments Muy = 1969 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

Design Properties

tb = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d =

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Concrete wall flexural demand/capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.997

1.00

0.30%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

f c = 30MPa

b = 300mm

fy = 460 MPa

h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

The distance to the neutral axis for a balanced condition, cb:

cb =

700

700

dt =

(1450 ) = 922.7 mm

700 + f y / s

700 + 460 /1.15

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

=

Cc

0.67

0.67

=

30 300a 4020a

=

fcu ab

1.5

m

As1

0.67 As2

0.67 As3

0.67

fc +

fc +

fc

fs1

fs 2

fs 3

s

m

m

m

s

s

As 4

A

=

T

fs 4 + s 5 fs 5

s

s

Cs =

As1

0.67 As2

0.67

fc +

fc +

fs1

fs 2

s

m

s

m

As3

A

0.67 As 4

fc

fs 4 + s 5 fs 5

fs 3

s

m

s

s

Pn1 =

4709a +

a

1 Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( d d s ) +

2

Pn 2 =

e

Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

(Eqn. 1)

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

As1

As 2

0.67

0.67

; Cs 2

f c=

f c ;

f s1

fs2

s

m

s

m

As 3

As 4

0.67

0.67

Cs 3

f=

=

f c and the bar strains and

fs3

fs4

c ; Ts 4

s

m

s

m

where

=

Cs1

e =e + d =606.5 + 700 =1306.5 mm.

4) Using c = 887.5 mm (from iteration), which is slightly more than cb (922.7mm).

a=

1c =

0.90 875.2 =

787.6 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 875.2 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.0035

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.0035

c

d c 2s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

0.0035

c

= 0.00330; f s =

s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

= 0.00190

f s 2 = 380.1 MPa

= 0.00050

f s 3 = 100.1 MPa

= 0.00090

f s 4 = 179.8 MPa

= 0.00230

f s 5 = 459.7 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 3246 kN

Pn2 = 3246 kN

3246(606.5) /1000 = 1969 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

8368 kN and moments Muy = 11967 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

Design Properties

tb = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

f c = 30 MPa

fy = 460 MPa

Concrete wall flexural demand/capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

1.001

1.00

0.10%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 1430 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

0.67

=

Ccw

fcu 200 ( a 200 )

m

0.67

Ccf =

f cu ( 2002500 )

m

As1

0.67 As2

0.67 As3

0.67

fc +

fc +

fc

fs1

fs 2

fs 3

s

m

m

m

s

s

A

A

A

T = s 4 fs 4 + s 5 fs 5 + s 6 fs 6

s

s

s

Cs =

=

Pn1

A

0.67

0.67

0.67

fcu 200 ( a - 200 ) +

fcu ( 200 2500 ) + s1 fs1

fc +

m

m

s

m

(Eqn. 1)

As2

As 5

As 6

0.67 As3

0.67 As 4

fc +

fc

fs 4 +

fs 5 +

fs 6

fs 2

fs 3

s

m

m

s

s

s

s

a tf

t f + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 4 s ) +

1 Ccf ( d d ) + Ccw d

2

Pn 2 =

Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2 s ) Ts 5 ( s )

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.:

As1

Asn

Asn

0.67

0.67

0.67

f c=

f c=

f c

f s1

; Csn

f sn

; Tsn

f sn

s

m

s

m

s

m

where

=

Cs1

e =e + d =1430 + 1150 =2580 mm.

4) Using c = 1160 mm (from iteration),

a=

1c =

0.9 1160 =

1044 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c= 1160 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs = f y :

c d

= 0.00320; f s =

s1 =

s E Fy ;

0.0035

c

csd

= 0.00181

s 2 =

0.0035

c

c 2s d

s3 =

0.0035 = 0.00042

c

d c 2s

= 0.00097

=

s 4

s6

d c

d cs

= 0.00235

=

s5

s6

d c

d c

s6 =

= 0.00374

0.0035

c

f s1 = 460 MPa

f s 2 = 362.0 MPa

f s 3 = 84.4 MPa

f s 4 = 193.2 MPa

f s 5 = 460.00 MPa

f s 6 = 460.00 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 8368 kN

Pn2 = 8368 kN

M=

P=

8368(1430) /1000 = 11,967 kN-m

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

A reinforced concrete wall is subjected factored axial load Pu = 3132 kN and

moments Muy = 1956 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

tb = 300 mm

h = 1500 mm

d=

50 mm

s=

350 mm

As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

f c = 25 MPa

fy = 420 MPa

Wall flexural demand/capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.997

1.00

0.30%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

fc = 25 MPa

b = 300mm

fy = 420 MPa

h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1. Values for

M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

fck

0.67

=

=

Cc 0.85

ab

=

25 300a 3350a

c

1.5

A

0.85 As2

0.85 As3

0.85

Cs = s1 fs1

fck +

fck +

fck

fs 2

fs 3

s

c

c

c

s

s

As 4

A

=

T

fs 4 + s 5 fs 5

s

s

As1

0.85 As2

0.85

fck +

fck +

fs1

fs 2

s

c

c

s

As3

A

0.85 As 4

fck

fs 4 + s 5 fs 5

fs 3

s

c

s

s

Pn1 =

3350a +

(Eqn. 1)

a

1 Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( d d s ) +

2

Pn 2 =

e

Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )

(Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

As1

As 2

0.85

0.85

f ck=

f ck ;

f s1

; Cs 2

fs2

s

c

s

c

As 4

As 3

0.85

0.85

f ck and the bar strains and stresses

=

Cs 3

f ck=

fs4

fs3

; Ts 4

s

c

s

c

where

Cs1

=

e =e + d =715 + 700 =1415 mm.

4) Using c = 853.4 mm (from iteration),

=

a k=

0.85 853.4

= 725.4 mm

1c

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0030 and c = 853.4 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.003

c

c s d

s 2 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

=

s3

s5

d c

d cs

=

s 4

s5

d c

d c

s5 =

0.003

c

= 0.00282; f s =

s E Fy ;

f s1 = 420.0 MPa

= 0.00159

f s 2 = 318.8 MPa

= 0.00036

f s 3 = 72.7 MPa

= 0.00087

f s 4 = 173.4 MPa

= 0.00210

f s 5 = 419.5 MPa

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 3132 kN

Pn2 = 3132 kN

3132(624.4) /1000 = 1956 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 9134

kN and moments Muy = 11952 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted below. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results are

compared with ETABS program results.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Material Properties

E=

=

25000 MPa

0.2

ETABS

0

Design Properties

tb = 200 mm

H = 2500 mm

d=

2400 mm

s=

460 mm

As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)

As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

f c = 25 MPa

fy = 420 MPa

Concrete wall demand/capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design

check.

Output Parameter

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

0.996

1.00

0.40%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Wall Strength Determined as follows:

1) A value of e = 1308.6 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

taken from the ETABS test model PMM interaction diagram for the pier, P1. Values

for M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to produce a

flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral axis, c, was

determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and 2 below

were equal.

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc + Cs T

where

Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

f

0.85 30

200 ( a 200 )= 3400(a 200)

Ccw= ck 200 ( a 200 )=

1.5

c

f

0.85(30)

=

Ccf 0.85 ck ( 200 ( 2500

=

1000 ) )

=

1000 ) ) 5,100, 000

( 200 ( 2500

1.5

c

f

f

f

Cs =

A1 fs1 0.85 ck + A2 fs 2 0.85 ck + A3 fs 3 0.85 ck

c

c

c

f

f

f

T = As 4 s 4 + As 5 s 4 + As 6 s 4

s

s

s

+

As1

fck As 2

fck

fs1 0.85

+

fs 2 0.85

s

c s

c

As 3

fck As 4

A

A

fs 4 s 5 fs 5 s 6 fs 6

fs 3 0.85

s

c s

s

s

(Eqn. 1)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

a tf

t f + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 4s ) +

1 Ccf ( d d ) + Ccw d

2

Pn 2 =

(Eqn. 2)

e

Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2s ) Ts 5 ( s )

where

=

Cs1

As1

As 2

As 3

0.85

0.85

0.85

fck=

fck=

fck ;

fs1

; Cs 2

fs 2

; Cs 3

fs 3

s

c

s

c

s

c

As 4

and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.

s

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d = 1150 mm

e =e + d =1308.6 + 1150 =2458.6 mm.

Ts 4 =

=

a k=

0.85 1327

= 1061.1 mm

1c

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 1327 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs = f y :

c d

s1 =

0.003

c

csd '

s2 =

0.003

c

c 2s d '

s3 =

0.003

c

d c 2s

s4 =

s6

d c

d cs

s5 =

s6

d c

d c

s6 =

0.003

c

= 0.00277;=

f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 420.0 MPa

= 0.00173

f s 2 = 346.8 MPa

= 0.00069

f s 3 = 138.8 MPa

= 0.00035

f s 4 = 69.2 MPa

= 0.00139

f s 5 = 277.2 MPa

= 0.00243

f s 6 = 420.0 MPa

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 9134 kN

Pn2 = 9134 kN

9134(1308.6) /1000 = 11952 kN-m

M=

P=

n

ne

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

COMPOSITE GIRDER DESIGN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

A series of 45-ft. span composite beams at 10 ft. o/c carry the loads shown

below. The beams are ASTM A992 and are unshored during construction. The

concrete has a specified compressive strength, fc = 4 ksi. Design a typical floor

beam with 3-in., 18-gage composite deck and 4 in. normal weight concrete

above the deck, for fire protection and mass. Select an appropriate beam and

determine the required number of in.-diameter shear studs.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

W21x55

E = 29000 ksi

Fy = 50 ksi

Loading

w = 830 plf (Dead Load)

w = 200 plf (Construction)

w = 100 plf (SDL)

w = 1000 plf (Live Load)

Geometry

Span, L = 45 ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Composite beam design, including:

Selection of steel section, camber and shear stud distribution

Member bending capacities, at construction and in service

Member deflections, at construction and in service

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are referenced from Example I.1 from the AISC Design

Examples, Version 13.0.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Pre-composite Mu (k-ft)

333.15

333.15

0.00%

472.5

472.5

0.00%

2.3

2.3

0.00%

687.5

687.5

0.00%

1027.1

1027.1

0.00%

770.3

770.3

0.00 %

17.2

17.2

0.00 %

35

34

2.9%

1.35

1.30

3.70%

61.1

61.1

0.00%

Vn (k)

234

234

0.00%

Output Parameter

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

The live load deflection differs due to a difference in methodology. In the AISC

example, the live load deflection is computed based on a lower bound value of

the beam moment of inertia, whereas in ETABS, it is computed based on the

approximate value of the beam moment of inertia derived from Equation (C-I3-6)

from the Commentary on the AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design

Specification Second Edition.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Materials:

ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi, wsteel = 490 pcf

4000 psi normal weight concrete

Ec = 3,644 ksi, fc = 4 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf

Section:

W21x55

d = 20.8 in, bf = 8.22 in, tf = 0.522 in, tw = 0.38 in, h = 18.75 in., rfillet = 0.5 in.

Asteel = 16.2 in2, Ssteel = 109.6 in3, Zsteel = 126 in3, Isteel = 1140 in4

Deck:

tc =4 in., hr = 3 in., sr =12 in., wr = 6 in.

Shear Connectors:

d = in, h =4 in, Fu = 65 ksi

Design for Pre-Composite Condition:

Construction Required Flexural Strength:

wL = 10 20 103 = 0.200 kip/ft

wu = 1.2 0.830125 + 1.6 0.200 = 1.31615 kip/ft

wu L2 1.31615 452

=

Mu =

= 333.15 kip-ft

8

8

Moment Capacity:

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Pre-Composite Deflection:

0.830

4

( 45 12 )

5wD L

12

=

nc

=

= 2.31 in.

384 EI 384 29, 000 1,140

4

Required Flexural Strength:

wu = 1.2 0.830 + 1.2 0.100 + 1.6 1 = 2.71 kip/ft

wu L2 2.68 452

Mu =

=

= 687.5 kip-ft

8

8

Effective width of slab:

10.0

45.0 ft

beff =

2 sides =10.0 ft

=11.25 ft

2

8

Resistance of steel in tension:

C = Py = As Fy = 16.2 50 = 810 kips controls

Ac = beff tc =

(10 12 ) 4.5 =

540 in

C= 0.85 f 'c A=

= 1836 kips

0.85 4 540

c

=

a

C

810

=

= 1.99 in.

0.85 beff f 'c 0.85 (10 12 ) 4

d1 = (tc + hr )

a

2.00

= (4.5 + 3)

= 6.51 in.

2

2

d

20.8 / 12

M n =

Py d1 + Py =

0.9 810 6.51 / 12 + 810

1027.1 kip-ft

=

2

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Assume 36.1% composite action:

0.361 810= 292.4 kips

C= 0.361 P=

y

292.4

C

=

= 0.72 in.

0.85 beff f 'c 0.85 (10 12 ) 4

=

a

( tc + hr )

d1 =

a

=

2

( 4.5 + 3)

0.72

= 7.14 in.

2

(P

Fflange = b f t f Fy = 8.22 0.522 50 = 214.5 kip

Tensile resistance of web:

Fweb = T tw Fy = 18.75 0.375 50 = 351.75 kips

Ffillet=

(P 2 F

y

flange

Fweb ) 2=

2= 14.6 kips

Depth of compression block in web:

x=

Cweb

29.7

T=

18.76= 1.584 in.

351.75

Fweb

Location of centroid of steel compression force measured from top of steel section:

d2

=

( Py C ) / 2

0.5 0.522 214.5 + ( 0.522 + 0.5 0.5) 14.6 + ( 0.522 + 0.5 + 0.5 1.58) 29.7

= 0.467 in.

258.8

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

M n =

C ( d1 + d 2 ) + Py ( d 3 d 2 )

20.8

0.467 =

12 770.3 kip-ft

2

From AISC Manual Table 3.21 assuming one shear stud per rib placed in the

weak position, the strength of in.-diameter shear studs in normal weight

concrete with f c = 4 ksi and deck oriented perpendicular to the beam is:

Qn = 17.2 kips

n

=

Qn 292.4

=

= 17 from each end to mid-span, rounded up to 35 total

Qn

17.2

Modulus of elasticity ratio:

n E=

Ec 29, 000 3,=

=

644 8.0

Transformed

Area

A (in2)

Moment Arm

from

Centroid

y (in.)

Ay

(in.3)

Ay2

(in,4)

I0

(in.4)

Slab

67.9

15.65

1,062

16,620

115

W21x50

16.2

1,140

1,062

16,620

1,255

Element

84.1

I x =I 0 + Ay 2 =

1, 255 + 16,620 =

17,874 in.4

=

y

1, 062

= 12.6 in.

84.1

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

I eff = 0.75 I equiv = 0.75 3,133 = 2,350 in 4

5 (1 12 ) ( 30 12 )

5wL L4

=

LL

=

= 1.35 in.

384 EI eff 384 29, 000 2,350

4

Required Shear Strength:

wu = 1.2 0.830 + 1.2 0.100 + 1.6 1 = 2.71 kip/ft

wu L 2.71 45

=

= 61.1 kip-ft

Vu =

2

2

Available Shear Strength:

1.0 0.6 20.8 0.375 50 =

234 kips

Vn =

0.6 d t w Fy =

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

COMPOSITE GIRDER DESIGN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

A typical bay of a composite floor system is illustrated below. Select an

appropriate ASTM A992 W-shaped beam and determine the required number of

in.-diameter steel headed stud anchors. The beam will not be shored during

construction. To achieve a two-hour fire rating without the application of spray

applied fire protection material to the composite deck, 4 in. of normal weight

(145 lb/ft3) concrete will be placed above the top of the deck. The concrete has a

specified compressive strength, fc = 4 ksi.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

W21x50

E = 29000 ksi

Fy = 50 ksi

Loading

w = 800 plf (Dead Load)

w = 250 plf (Construction)

w = 100 plf (SDL)

w = 1000 plf (Live Load)

Geometry

Span, L = 45 ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Composite beam design, including:

Selection of steel section, camber and shear stud distribution

Member bending capacities, at construction and in service

Member deflections, at construction and in service

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are referenced from Example I.1 from the AISC Design

Examples, Version 14.0.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Pre-composite Mu (k-ft)

344.2

344.2

0.00%

412.5

412.5

0.00%

2.6

2.6

0.00%

678.3

678.4

0.01%

937.1

937.1

0.00%

763.2

763.2

0.00%

17.2; 14.6

17.2; 14.6

0.00%

46

46

0.00%

1.34

1.26

6.0%

60.3

60.3

0.00%

Vn (k)

237.1

237.1

0.00%

Output Parameter

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

The live load deflection differs due to a difference in methodology. In the AISC

example, the live load deflection is computed based on a lower bound value of

the beam moment of inertia, whereas in ETABS, it is computed based on the

approximate value of the beam moment of inertia derived from Equation (C-I3-6)

from the Commentary on the AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design

Specification Second Edition.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Materials:

ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi, wsteel = 490 pcf

4000 psi normal weight concrete

Ec = 3,644 ksi, f c = 4 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf

Section:

W21x50

d = 20.8 in, bf = 6.53 in, tf = 0.535 in, tw = 0.38 in, k = 1.04 in

Asteel = 14.7 in2, Ssteel = 94.6 in3, Zsteel = 110 in3, Isteel = 984 in4

Deck:

tc =4 in., hr = 3 in., sr =12 in., wr = 6 in.

Shear Connectors:

d = in, h =4 in, Fu = 65 ksi

Design for Pre-Composite Condition:

Construction Required Flexural Strength:

wD = (10 75 + 50) 103 = 0.800 kip/ft

wL = 10 25 103 = 0.250 kip/ft

Mu

=

wu L2 1.36 452

=

= 344.25 kip-ft

8

8

Moment Capacity:

b M n = b Z s Fy =(0.9 110 50) 12 =412.5 kip-ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Pre-Composite Deflection:

5wD L4

=

nc

=

384 EI

0.800

4

( 45 12 )

12

= 2.59 in.

384 29, 000 984

Camber

= 0.8 nc

= 0.8 2.59

= 2.07 in., which is rounded down to 2 in.

Design for Composite Flexural Strength:

Required Flexural Strength:

wu L2 2.68 452

=

= 678.38 kip-ft

Mu =

8

8

Effective width of slab:

10.0

45.0 ft

2 sides =10.0 ft

beff =

=11.25 ft

2

8

C = Py = As Fy = 14.7 50 = 735 kips controls

Ac = beff tc =

(10 12 ) 4.5 =

540 in

= 1836 kips

C= 0.85 f 'c A=

0.85 4 540

c

Depth of compression block within slab:

=

a

C

735

=

= 1.80 in.

0.85 beff f 'c 0.85 (10 12 ) 4

a

1.80

d1 = ( tc + hr ) = ( 4.5 + 3)

= 6.60 in.

2

2

d

20.8 /12

M n =

Py d1 + Py =

0.9 735 6.60 /12 + 735

937.1 kip-ft

=

2

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Assume 50.9% composite action:

C= 0.509 P=

373.9 kips

y

C

373.9

=

= 0.92 in.

0.85 beff f 'c 0.85 (10 12 ) 4

=

a

d =

1

(tc + hr ) a2 =

( 4.5 + 3)

0.92

= 7.04 in.

2

Py C 735 373.9

=

= 180.6 kips

2

2

C flange = b f t f Fy = 6.53 0.535 50 = 174.7 kips

Cweb = ( d 2 k ) tw Fy = (20.8 2 1.04) 0.38 50 = 355.7 kips

Steel section fillet ultimate compressive force:

=

C fillet

=

= 14.5 kips

2

2

Assuming a rectangular fillet area, the distance from the bottom of the top flange to

the neutral axis of the composite section is:

( P C ) / 2 C flange

x =(k t f ) y

C fillet

180.6 174.7

=(1.04 0.535)

=0.20 in.

14.98

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Distance from the centroid of the compressive force in the steel section to the top of

the steel section:

d2 =

( Py C ) / 2

174.7 0.535 / 2 + (180.6 174.7) (0.535 + 0.2 / 2)

= 0.279 in.

180.6

M n =

C ( d1 + d 2 ) + Py ( d 3 d 2 )

20.8

0.279 =

12 763.2 kip-ft

2

From AISC Manual Table 3.21, assuming the shear studs are placed in the weak

position, the strength of in.-diameter shear studs in normal weight concrete with

f c = 4 ksi and deck oriented perpendicular to the beam is:

Qn = 14.6 kips for two shear studs per deck flute

Shear Stud Distribution:

There are at most 22 deck flutes along each half of the clear span of the beam.

ETABS only counts the studs in the first 21 deck flutes as the 22nd flute is potentially

too close to the point of zero moment for any stud located in it to be effective. With

two shear studs in the first flute, 20 in the next in the next twenty flutes, and one

shear stud in the 22nd flute, in each half of the beam, there is a total of 46 shear studs

on the beam, and the total force provided by the shear studs in each half span is:

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Modulus of elasticity ratio:

644 8.0

n E=

Ec 29, 000 3,=

=

Transformed

Area

A (in2)

Moment Arm

from Centroid

y (in.)

Ay

(in.3)

Ay2

(in,4)

I0

(in.4)

Slab

67.9

15.65

1,062

16,620

115

W21x50

14.7

984

1,062

16,620

1,099

Element

82.6

Ix =

I 0 + Ay 2 =

1, 099 + 16, 620 =

17, 719 in.4

=

y

1, 062

= 12.9 in.

82.6

2

I eff = 0.75 I equiv = 0.75 3,176 = 2,382 in 4

=

LL

5wL L4

5 (1 / 12) (30 12) 4

=

= 1.34 in.

384 EI eff

384 29, 000 2, 382

Required Shear Strength:

=

Vu

wu L 2.68 45

=

= 60.3 kip-ft

2

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

1.0 0.6 20.8 0.38 50 =

237.1 kips

Vn =

0.6 d tw Fy =

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

COMPOSITE GIRDER DESIGN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The design is checked for the composite girder shown below. The deck is 3 in.

deep with 4 normal weight (145 pcf) concrete cover with a compressive

strength of 4 ksi. The girder will not be shored during construction. The applied

loads are the weight of the structure, a 25 psf construction live load, a 10 psf

superimposed dead load and a 100 psf non-reducible service line load.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

W24x76

E = 29000 ksi

Fy = 50 ksi

Loading

P = 36K (Dead Load)

P = 4.5K (SDL)

P = 45K (Live Load)

Geometry

Span, L = 45 ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Composite beam design, including:

Selection of steel section, camber and shear stud distribution

Member bending capacities, at construction and in service

Member deflections, at construction and in service

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are referenced from Example I.2 from the AISC Design

Examples, Version 14.0.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

Pre-composite Mu (k-ft)

622.3

622.3

0.00%

677.2

677.2

0.00%

1.0

1.0

0.00%

1216.3

1216.3

0.00%

1480.1

1480.1

0.00%

1267.3

1267.3

0.00%

21.54

21.54

0.00%

26, 3, 26

26, 3, 26

0.00%

0.63

0.55

12.7%

122.0

122.0

0.00%

Vn (k)

315.5

315.5

0.00%

Output Parameter

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

The live load deflection differs more markedly because of a difference in

methodology. In the AISC example, the live load deflection is computed based

on a lower bound value of the beam moment of inertia, whereas in ETABS, it is

computed based on the approximate value of the beam moment of inertia derived

from Equation (C-I3-6) from the Commentary on the AISC Load and Resistance

Factor Design Specification Second Edition.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Materials:

ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi, wsteel = 490 pcf

4000 psi normal weight concrete

Ec = 3,644 ksi, f c = 4 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf

Section:

W24x76

d = 23.9 in, bf = 8.99 in, tf = 0.68 in, tw = 0.44 in

Asteel = 22.4 in2, Isteel = 2100 in4

Deck:

tc =4 in., hr = 3 in., sr =12 in., wr = 6 in.

Shear Connectors:

d = in, h =4 in, Fu = 65 ksi

Design for Pre-Composite Condition:

Construction Required Flexural Strength:

22.4

w A

=

w =

sq .ft . 490 pcf

= 76.2 plf

steel steel 144

PD =

36 kips

[(45 ft)(10 ft)(75 psf ) + (50 plf )(45 ft)] (0.001 kip / lb) =

PL

=

ft)(10 ft)(25 psf )] (0.001 kip/lb)

[(45

11.25 kips

1.2 wL2

L

+ (1.2 PD + 1.6 PL )

8

3

2

76.2 30

30

= 1.2

+ (1.2 36 +1.6 11.25

=

622.3 kip-ft

)

8

3

Mu =

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Moment Capacity:

Lb = 10 ft

Lp = 6.78 ft

Lr = 19.5 ft

bBF = 22.6 kips

bMpx = 750 kip-ft

Cb = 1.0

b M=

Cb b M px b BF ( Lb L p )

n

=

1.0 750 22.6 (10 6.78 )

=

677.2 kip-ft

Pre-Composite Deflection:

0.0762

3604

PD L

5wD L

36.0 360

12

=

+

=

+

= 1.0

nc

28 EI

384 EI 28 29, 000 2,100 384 29, 000 2,100

3

Camber

= 0.8 nc

= 0.8 in. which is rounded down to in.

Required Flexural Strength:

P =

40.5 kips

[ (45 ft)(10 ft)(75 +10psf ) + (50 plf)(45 ft)] (0.001 kip/lb) =

D

P

L

=

ft)(10 ft)(100 psf ) ] (0.001 kip/lb)

[ (45

45 kips

1.2 wL2

L

+ (1.2 PD + 1.6 PL )

8

3

2

1.2 76.22 30

30

1216.3 kip-ft

=

+ (1.2 40.5 +1.6

=

45)

8

3

Mu =

Effective width of slab:

=

b

eff

30.0 ft

= 7.5

=

ft 90 in.

8

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

C = Py = As Fy = 22.4 50 = 1,120 kips controls

Ac = beff tc + (beff 2) hr = (7.5 12) 4.5 +

2

7.5 12

3= 540 in

2

C= 0.85 f 'c A=

0.85 4 540

= 1836 kips

c

=

a

C

1,120

=

= 3.66 in.

0.85 beff f 'c 0.85 (7.5 12) 4

d1 = (tc + hr )

a

3.66

= (4.5 + 3)

= 5.67 in.

2

2

M =

C d + P

n

y

1

2

23.9 12

=

0.9 1,120 5.67 / 12 + 1,120

1480.1 kip-ft

=

2

Assume 50% composite action:

C = 0.5 Py = 560 kips

=

a

C

560

=

= 1.83 in.

0.85 beff f 'c 0.85 (7.5 12) 4

d1 = (tc + hr )

a

1.83

= (4.5 + 3)

= 6.58 in.

2

2

=

x

Py C

1,120 560

=

= 0.623 in.

2 b f Fy 2 8.99 50

=

d 2 x=

/ 2 0.311 in.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

M n =C (d1 + d 2 ) + Py (d3 d 2 )

23.9

0.312 12 =1, 408 kip-ft

2

=

Qn 0.5 Asa

f 'c Ec Rg R p Asa Fu

d sa 2 4 =

(0.75) 2 4 =

0.442 in 2

Asa =

f c ' = 4 ksi

1.5

1.5

=

=

E w=

f c ' 145

4 3, 490 ksi

c

Rg = 1.0 Studs welded directly to the steel shape with the slab haunch

Rp = 0.75 Studs welded directly to the steel shape

Fu = 65 ksi

Qn = 0.5 0.4422 4 3, 490 1.0 0.75 0.4422 65

= 26.1 kips 21.54 kips controls

n=

=

Qn

Qn

560

= 26 studs from each end to nearest concentrated load point

21.54

Add 3 studs between load points to satisfy maximum stud spacing requirement.

Live Load Deflection:

Modulus of elasticity ratio:

=

n E=

/ Ec 29, 000 / 3,

=

644 8.0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Transformed

Area

A (in2)

Moment Arm

from

Centroid

y (in.)

Ay

(in.3)

Ay2

(in,4)

I0

(in.4)

Slab

50.9

17.2

875

15,055

86

Deck ribs

17.0

13.45

228

3,069

13

W21x50

22.4

2,100

1,103

18,124

2,199

Element

89.5

I x =I 0 + Ay 2 =2,199 + 18,124 =20,323 in.4

=

y

1, 092

= 12.2 in.

89.5

2

I eff = 0.75 I equiv = 0.75 5, 446 = 4, 084 in 4

=

LL

PL L3

45.0 (30 12)3

=

= 0.633 in.

28EI eff 28 29,000 4,084

Required Shear Strength:

Pu = 1.2 PD + 1.6 PL = 1.2 40.5 + 1.6 45 = 120.6 kip

=

Vu

1.2 w L

1.2 0.076 30

=

+ Pu

+=

120.6 121.2 kip-ft

2

2

Vn =

0.6 d tw Fy =

1.0 0.6 23.9 0.44 50 =

315.5 kips

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

BS-5950-90 Example-001

STEEL DESIGNERS MANUAL SIXTH EDITION - DESIGN OF SIMPLY SUPPORTED COMPOSITE

BEAM

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

Design a composite floor with beams at 3-m centers spanning 12 m. The

composite slab is 130 mm deep. The floor is to resist an imposed load of 5.0

kN/m2, partition loading of 1.0 kN/m2 and a ceiling load of 0.5 kN/m2. The floor

is to be un-propped during construction.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

UKB457x191x67

E = 205,000 MPa

Fy = 355 MPa

Loading

w = 6.67kN/m (Dead Load)

w = 1.5kN/m (Construction)

w = 1.5kN/m (Superimposed Load)

w = 18.00kN/m (Live Load)

Geometry

Span, L = 12 m

Composite beam design, including:

Selection of steel section, camber and shear stud distribution

Member bending capacities, at construction and in service

Member deflections, at construction and in service

BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are referenced from the first example, Design of Simply

Supported Composite Beam, in Chapter 21 of the Steel Construction Institute

Steel Designers Manual, Sixth Edition.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

211.2

211.3

0.05%

Construction Ms (kN-m)

522.2

522.2

0.00%

29.9

29.9

0.00%

724.2

724.3

0.01%

968.9

968.9

0.00%

910.8

910.9

0.01%

57.6

57.6

0.00%

33.2

33.2

0.00%

241.4

241.4

0.00%

820.9

821.2

0.00%

Output Parameter

Construction Design

Moment (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an excellent comparison with the independent results.

BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Materials:

S355 Steel:

E = 205,000 MPa, py = 355 MPa, s = 7850 kg/m3

Light-weight concrete:

E = 24,855 MPa, fcu = 30 MPa, c = 1800 kg/m3

Section:

UKB457x191x67

D = 453.6 mm, bf = 189.9 mm, tf = 12.7 mm, tw = 8.5 mm

Asteel = 8,550 mm2, Isteel = 29,380 cm4

Deck:

Ds =130 mm, Dp = 50 mm, sr = 300 mm, br = 150 mm

Shear Connectors:

d = 19 mm, h = 95 mm, Fu = 450 MPa

Loadings:

Self weight slab

= 2.0 kN/m2

= 0.67 kN/m

Construction load

= 0.5 kN/m2

Ceiling

= 0.5 kN/m2

= 1.0 kN/m2

= 5.0 kN/m2

Construction Required Flexural Strength:

wult construction = 1.4 0.67 + (1.4 2.0 + 1.6 0.5 ) 3.0 = 11.74 kN/m

BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

=

=

= 211.3 kN-m

M ult construction

8

8

M s = S z Py = 1, 471 103 355 106 = 522.2 kN-m

Pre-Composite Deflection:

wconstruction = 2.0 3.0 + 0.67 = 6.67 kN/m

5 wconstruction L4

5 6.67 12, 0004

=

=

= 29.9 mm

384 E I

384 205, 000 29,380 104

Camber

= 0.8 =

24 mm, which is rounded down to 20 mm

Required Flexural Strength:

wult = 1.4 0.67 + (1.4 2.0 + 1.6 1 + 1.6 5 ) 3.0 = 40.24 kN/m

=

=

= 724.3 kN-m

M

ult

8

8

Full Composite Action Available Flexural Strength:

Effective width of slab:

B=

e

L 12,000

=

= 3, 000 mm 3,000 mmm

4

4

Rc = 0.45 f cu Be ( Ds D p )= 0.45 30 3, 000 (130 50 ) 103= 3, 240 kN

Rs = Py = As p y = 8,550 355 103 = 3, 035 kN controls

D

R ( Ds D p )

M=

Rs + Ds s

for Rs Rc

pc

Rc

2

2

3,035 80

453.6

= 3,035

+ 130

=

103 968.9 kN-m

3, 240 2

2

BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 4

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Assume 72% composite action the 75% assumed in the example requires more

shear studs than can fit on the beam given its actual clear length.

Rq = 0.72 Rs = 2,189 kN

Rw = tw ( D 2 t f ) p y = 8.5 ( 453.6 2 12.7 ) 355 103 = 1, 292 kN

Rq ( Ds D p ) ( Rs Rq ) 2 t f

D

M c =Rs + Rq Ds

2

2

4

Rc

Rf

453.6

2,189 80

= 3,035

103 + 2,1899 130

103

2

3, 240 2

( 3,035 1, 292 ) 4

= 910.9 kN-m

Shear Stud Strength:

Characteristic resistance of 19 mm-diameter studs in normal weight 30 MPa

concrete:

Qk = 100 kN from BS 5950: Part 3 Table 5

Adjusting for light-weight concrete:

Qk = 90 kN

Reduction factor for profile shape with ribs perpendicular to the beam and two studs

per rib:

k = 0.6

br ( h D p )

150 ( 95 50 )

= 0.6

50

50

Dp

Dp

Design strength:

Q p =k 0.8 Qk =0.8 0.8 90 =57.6 kN

The example places two rows of shear studs and computes the numbers of deck ribs

available for placing shear studs based on the beam center to center span and the

deck rib spacing: 12 m / 300 mm = 40

BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 5

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

However, the number of deck ribs available for placing shear studs must be based on

the beam clear span, and since the clear beam span is somewhat less than the 12 m

center to center span there are only 39 deck ribs available.

ETABS selects 72% composite action, which is the highest achievable and sufficient

to meet the live load deflection criteria. ETABS satisfies this 72% composite action

by placing one stud per deck rib along the entire length of the beam, plus a second

stud per rib in all the deck ribs except the mid-span rib since this is the location of

the beam zero moment and a stud in that rib would not contribute anything to the

total resistance of the shear connectors. The total resistance of the shear connectors

is:

Live Load Deflection:

The second moment of area of the composite section, based on elastic properties, Ic

is given by:

=

Ic

Asteel ( D+ Ds + D p )

4 (1 + e r )

beff ( Ds D p )

12 e

+ I steel

Asteel

8,550

=

= 0.0356

beff ( Ds D p ) 3,000 (130 50 )

=

r

s =

10

l =25

=

l

=

= 0.541

wdl + wsdl + wlive

6.67 + 1.5 + 18

e = s + l ( l s ) = 10 + 0.541 ( 25 10 ) = 18.1

=

Ic

+

+ 294 106

4 (1 + 18.1 0.0356 )

12 18.1

2

822 106 mm 4

BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 6

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

5 18 (12,000 )

5 wlive L4

=

c

=

= 28.8 mm

384 E I c 384 205,000 822 106

4

5 18 (12, 000 )

5 wlive L4

=

s

=

384 E I c 384 205, 000 294 106

4

partial = c + 0.3 (1 K ) ( s c )

= 28.9 + 0.3 (1 0.72 ) ( 80.7 28.9 )= 33.2 mm

Required Shear Strength:

=

Fv

wult L 40.24 12

=

= 241.4 kN

2

2

P = 0.6 p y Ds tw = 0.6 355 453.4 8.5 103 = 820.9 kN

V

BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 7

Software Verification

ETABS

4

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

CSA-S16-09 Example-001

HANDBOOK OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, TENTH EDITION - COMPOSITE BEAM

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

Design a simply supported composite beam to span 12 m and carry a uniformly

distributed specified load of 18 kN/m live load and 12 kN/m dead load. Beams

are spaced at 3 m on center and support a 75 mm steel deck (ribs perpendicular to

the beam) with a 65 mm cover slab of 25 MPa normal density concrete.

Calculations are based on Fy = 345 MPa. Live load deflections are limited to

L/300.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

W460x74

E = 205,000 MPa

Fy = 345 MPa

Loading

w = 8.0kN/m (Dead Load)

w = 2.5kN/m (Construction)

w = 4.0kN/m (Superimposed Load)

w = 18.00kN/m (Live Load)

Geometry

Span, L = 12 m

Composite beam design, including:

Selection of steel section, camber and shear stud distribution

Member bending capacities, at construction and in service

Member deflections, at construction and in service

CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are referenced from the design example on page 5-25 of the

Handbook of Steel Construction, Tenth Edition.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

247.4

247.5

0.04%

Construction Ms (kN-m)

512.3

512.3

0.00%

32.4

32.4

0.00%

755.8

756

0.02%

946.7

946.7

0.00%

783.6

783.6

0.00%

68.7

68.7

0.00%

30

30

0.00%

32.9

32.9

0.00%

267.2

267.1

0.04%

251.9

251.9

0.00%

842.9

842.9

0.00%

Output Parameter

Construction Design

Moment (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Materials:

ASTM A992 Grade 50 Steel

E = 200,000 MPa, Fy = 345 MPa, s = 7850 kg/m3

Normal weight concrete

E = 23,400 MPa, fcu = 20 MPa, c = 2300 kg/m3

Section:

W460x74

d = 457 mm, bf = 190 mm, tf = 14.5 mm, tw = 9 mm, T = 395 mm, rfillet=16.5 mm

, Z s 1, 650 103 mm3 , =

As = 9,450 mm2=

I s 333 106 mm 4

Deck:

tc =65 mm, hr = 75 mm, sr = 300 mm, wr = 150 mm

Shear Connectors:

d = 19 mm, h = 115 mm, Fu = 450 MPa

Loadings:

Self weight slab

= 2.42 kN/m2

= 0.73 kN/m

Construction load

= 0.83 kN/m2

= 1.33 kN/m2

Live load

= 6.0 kN/m2

Construction Required Flexural Strength:

w f construction = 1.25 0.73 + (1.25 2.42 + 1.5 0.83) 3.0 = 13.75 kN/m

w f construction L2 13.75 122

M f construction

=

=

= 247.5 kN-m

8

8

CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

Moment Capacity:

M s = Z s 0.9 Fy =1, 650 103 0.9 345 106 = 512.3 kN-m

Pre-Composite Deflection:

wconstruction = 2.42 3.0 + 0.73 = 8.0 kN/m

=

5 wconstruction L4

5 8.0 12, 0004

=

= 32.4 mm

384 E I

384 200, 000 33, 300 104

Camber

= 0.8 =

25.9 mm, which is rounded down to 25 mm

Required Flexural Strength:

w f = 1.25 0.73 + (1.25 2.42 + 1.25 1.33 + 1.5 6 ) 3.0= 42 kN/m

w f L2 42 122

=

Mf

=

= 756.0 kN-m

8

8

Full Composite Action Available Flexural Strength:

Effective width of slab:

b

=

l

L

12,000

=

= 3, 000 mm 3,000 mmm

4

4

=1 0.85 0.0015 =

f c 0.8125

C 'r = 1 c t b f f c = 0.8125 0.65 65 3,000 25 103 = 2,574 kN controls

Resistance of steel in tension:

3

As F=

0.9 9,450 345 10=

2,934 kN

y

=

x

( As Fy C ' r ) 2

=

Fy b f

2,547 ) 103 2

( 2,934

=

0.9 345 190

3.05 mm

CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 4

Software Verification

ETABS

4

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

t x

d x

M rc= C 'r h r + c + + As Fy

2 2

2 2

65 3

457 3

3

= 2,574 75 + + 103 + 2,934

10=

946.7 kN-m

2 2

2

2

Partial Composite Action Available Flexural Strength:

Assume 40.0% composite action:

Depth of compression block within concrete slab:

Qr

1,031 103

=

= 26 mm

a =

1 c beff f c 0.8125 0.65 3,000 25

Compression force within steel section:

Cr =

( Py Qr ) 2 =

951.6 kN

( 2,934 1,031) 2 =

F

= b t F = 0.9 190 14.5 345 103 = 855.4 kN

flange

y

f

f

=

T t F =

F

0.9 395 9 345 103 =

1,103.8 kN

web

w y

Ffillet=

(P 2 F

y

flange

Fweb ) 2=

2= 59.8 kN

Cweb =

Cr Fflange Ffillet =

951.6 855.4 59.7 =

36.4 kN

x=

Cweb

36.4

T=

395= 13 mm

Fweb

1,103.8

CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 5

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

Location of centroid of compressive force within steel section measured from top of

steel section:

d2

=

Cr

= 9.4 mm

951.6

M rc = Qr h r + tc + d 2 + Py d 2

2

26

457

3

783.6 kN-m

= 1,031 75 + 65 + 9.4 103 + 2,934

9.4 10=

2

From CISC Handbook of Steel Construction Tenth Edition for 19-mm-diameter

studs,

hd = 75 mm, wd/hd = 2.0, 25 MPa, 2,3000 kg/m3 concrete:

qrr = 68.7 kN

2 Qr 2 1, 031

Total number of studs required ==

= 30

qrr

68.7

Modulus of elasticity ratio:

=

n E=

Ec 200, 000 23,=

400 8.55

Transformed elastic moment of inertia assuming full composite action:

Element

Transformed

Area

A (mn2)

Moment Arm

from Centroid

Ay

Ay2

I0

y (mm)

(103 mm3) (106 mm4) (106 mm4)

Slab

22,815

336

7,666

2,576

W460x74

9,450

333

7,666

2,576

341

32,265

CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 6

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

=

y

7, 666 106

= 238 mm

32, 265

2

Effective moment of inertia assuming partial composite action:

I eff =

I s + 0.85 p 0.25 ( I tr I s )

= 333 + 0.85 0.400.25 (1,095 333)

= 848 106 mm 4

5 18 (12,000 )

5wL L4

LL= 1.15

= 1.15

= 32.9 mm

384 EI eff

384 200,000 848 106

4

Stress in tension flange due to specified load acting on steel beam alone:

=

f1

M1

8 120002

=

= 98.6 MPa

S x 8 1460 103

per the original example, full composite action:

=

St

1,095 106

I tr

=

= 1350 mm

d

(228.5

237.6)

+

( + y)

2

Stress in tension flange due to specified live and superimposed dead loads acting on

composite section:

M 2 (18 + 4) 120002

=

f2 =

= 168.5 MPa

St

8 2350 103

f1 + f 2 =

98.6 +168.5=267.1 MPa

CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 7

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

4

Required Shear Strength:

=

Vf

wfactored L 42 12

= = 252 kN

2

2

CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 8

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

EC-4-2004 Example-001

STEEL DESIGNERS MANUAL SEVENTH EDITION - DESIGN OF SIMPLY SUPPORTED COMPOSITE

BEAM

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

Consider an internal secondary composite beam of 12-m span between columns

and subject to uniform loading. Choose a UKB457x191x74 in S 355 steel.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Member Properties

UKB457x191x74

E = 205,000 MPa

fy = 355 MPa

ETABS

3

Geometry

Loading

Span, L = 12 m

w = 8.43kN/m (Dead Load)

w = 2.25kN/m (Construction)

Beam spacing, b =3 m

w = 1.5kN/m (Superimposed Load)

w = 15.00kN/m (Live Load)

Composite beam design, including:

Selection of steel section, camber and shear stud distribution

Member bending capacities, at construction and in service

Member deflections, at construction and in service

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are referenced from the first example, Design of Simply

Supported Composite Beam, in Chapter 22 of the Steel Construction Institute

Steel Designers Manual, Seventh Edition.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

250.4

250.4

0.00%

587

587

0.00%

32.5

32.5

0.00%

628.4

628.4

0.01%

1020

1020

0.00%

971.2

971.2

0.00%

Input

52.0

NA

77

76

1.3%

19.3

19.1

1.03%

Output Parameter

Construction MEd (kN-m)

EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

Output Parameter

Required Strength VEd (kN)

Vpl,Rd (kN)

ETABS

3

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

209.5

209.5

0.00%

843

843

0.00%

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

The shear stud capacity Pr was entered as an overwrite, since it is controlled by

the deck profile geometry and the exact geometry of the example, which assumes

a deck profile with a rib depth of 60 mm, a depth above profile of 60 mm and a

total depth of 130 mm, cannot be modeled in ETABS, since in ETABS, only the

rib depth and depth above profile can be specified.

EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Materials:

S 355 Steel:

E = 210,000 MPa, fy = 355 MPa, partial safety factor a = 1.0

Normal weight concrete class C25/30:

Ecm = 30,500 MPa, fcu = 30 MPa, density wc = 24 kN/m3

Section:

UKB457x191x74

ha = 457 mm, bf = 190.4 mm, tf = 14.5 mm, tw = 9 mm,

Aa = 9,460 mm2, Iay = 33,319 cm4, Wpl = 1,653 cm3

Deck:

Slab depth hs =130 mm, depth above profile hc = 60 mm,

Deck profile height hp = 60 mm, hd = hp + 10 mm for re-entrant stiffener,

sr = 300 mm, b0 = 150 mm

Shear Connectors:

d = 19 mm, h = 95 mm, Fu = 450 MPa

Loadings:

Self weight slab, decking, reinforcement

= 2.567 kN/m2

= 0.73 kN/m

Construction load

= 0.75 kN/m2

Ceiling

= 0.5 kN/m2

= 1.0 kN/m2

= 4.0 kN/m2

EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 4

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Construction Required Flexural Strength:

wfactored construction = 1.25 (2.567 3.0 + 0.73) + 1.5 0.75 3.0 = 13.91 kN/m

M

=

Ed

=

= 250.4 kN-m

8

8

Moment Capacity:

Pre-Composite Deflection:

wconstruction= 2.567 3.0 + 0.73= 8.43 kN/m

5 wconstruction L4

5 8.43 12,0004

=

= 32.5 mm

384 E I ay

384 210,000 33,319 104

Camber

= 0.8 =

26 mm, which is rounded down to 25 mm

Required Flexural Strength:

wfactored = 1.25 0.73 + (1.25 2.567 + 1.25 0.5 + 1.5 1 + 1.5 4.0) 3.0 = 34.91 kN/m

M

=

Ed

=

= 628.4 kN-m

8

8

Effective width of slab:

=

beff

2 L 2 12

= = 3m

8

8

Rc=

0.85 f ck

beff hc= 0.85 (25 /1.5) 3, 000 60 103= 2,550 kN controls

c

EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 5

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

=

x

3, 358 2, 250

Rs Rc

=

= 6 mm

2 b f f yd 2 190.4 355

d 2 x=

/ 2 0.273 in.

=

The plastic axis is in the steel flange and the moment resistance for full composite

action is:

h ( R Rc ) 2 t f

h

h

M a , pl ,RD =

Rs d 2 +R c hs c - s

2

4

Rf

2

2

453.6

60

(3,358 2,550) 2 14.5

103

2

2

980

4

= 1020.0 kN-m

= 3,358

Assume 77.5% composite action:

R=

0.775 R=

0.775 3,358= 1,976 kN

q

s

Tensile Resistance of web:

Rw =

tw ( D 2 t f ) p y =

8.5 (453.6 2 12.7) 355 103 =

1, 292 kN

As Rq > Rw, the plastic axis is in the steel flange, and

M c =Rs

R h ( R Rq ) 2 t f

h

+ Rq hs q c s

2

Rc 2

Rf

4

= 3,358

453.6

1,976 60

(3,358 1,976) 2 14.5

103

103

2

2,

250

2

980

4

= 971.2 kN-m

Resistance of Shear Connector:

Resistance of shear connector in solid slab:

PRd= 0.29 d 2

0.29 d 2

d2

h 95

f ck Ecm v 0.8 fu v with =1.0 for =

>4

d 19

4

= 73 kN controls

f ck Ecm =

EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 6

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

d2

19

0.8 fu v =0.8 450 1.25 =81.7 kN

4

4

Reduction factor for decking perpendicular to beam assuming two studs per rib:

0.7

( b0 hp ) ( hsc hp ) 1 0.75 per EN 1994-1-1 Table 6.2

nr

=

kt

0.7 150

( 95 60 ) 1= 0.72 0.75

2 60

Total resistance with two studs per rib and 19 ribs from the support to the mid-span:

Rq =2 19 52 =1,976 kN

The second moment of area of the composite section, based on elastic properties, Ic

is given by:

Aa (h + 2 hp + hc ) 2

Ic

=

4 (1 + n r )

beff hc3

+

+ I ay

12 n

Aa

9, 460

=

= 0.052

beff hc 3, 000 60

=

r

=

Ic

+

+ 33,320 104

4 (1 + 10 0.052)

12 10

=

live

5 wlive L4

5 15 (12, 000) 4

=

= 19.1 mm

384 E I c 384 210, 000 10.08 108

EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 7

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

3

Required Shear Strength:

=

VEd

wfactored L 34.91 12

= = 209.5 kN

2

2

=

V pl , Rd

=

843 kN

3 103

EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 8

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

COMPOSITE COLUMN DESIGN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

Determine if the 14-ft.-long filled composite member illustrated below is

adequate for the indicated dead and live loads. The composite member consists

of an ASTM A500 Grade B HSS with normal weight (145 lb/ft3) concrete fill

having a specified compressive strength, fc = 5 ksi.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

HSS10x6 x

E = 29,000 ksi

Fy = 46 ksi

Loading

PD = 32.0 kips

PL = 84.0 kips

Geometry

Height, L = 14 ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Compression capacity of composite column design.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are referenced from Example I.4 from the AISC Design

Examples, Version 14.0.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

172.8

172.8

0.00%

342.93

354.78

3.34%

Output Parameter

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Materials:

ASTM A500 Grade B Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 46 ksi, Fu = 58 ksi

5000 psi normal weight concrete

Ec = 3,900 ksi, f c = 5 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf

Section dimensions and properties:

HSS10x6x

H = 10.0 in, B= 6.00 in, t = 0.349 in

As = 10.4 in2, Isx = 137 in4, Isy = 61.8 in4

Concrete area

Ac= bi hi t 2 (4 )= 5.30 9.30 (0.349) 2 (4 )= 49.2 in.2

( H 4 t ) bt3 t ( B 4 t )3 (92 64) t 4

B 4t 4t

=

+

+

+ t2

I cy

12

6

36

2

3

+

+

+

12

6

36

6 4 0.349 4 0.349 2

)

0.3492 (

2

3

= 114.3 in.4

Required Compressive Strength:

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

E

Pno = Pp = Fy As + C2 f c Ac + Asr s

Ec

where

Pno = 46 10.4 + 0.85 5 (49.2 + 0.0) = 687.5 kips

Weak-axis Elastic Buckling Force:

As

0.6 + 2

C3 =

0.9

Ac + As

10.4

=

0.6 + 2

0.9

49.2 + 10.4

0.9 controls

= 0.949 > 0.9

EI eff = Es I sy + Es I sr + C3 Ec I cy

= 29, 000 62.1 + 0 + 0.9 3,900 114.3

= 2, 201, 000 kip-in 2

Pe = 2 ( EI eff ) ( KL) 2 where K = 1.0 for a pin-ended member

Pe

=

2 2, 201, 000

= 769.7 kips

1.0 (14.0 12) 2

Pno

688

=

= 0.893 < 2.25

Pe 769.7

Pno

Pn =

Pno 0.658 Pe =

0.75 687.5 (0.658)0.893 =

354.8 kips

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

COMPOSITE COLUMN DESIGN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

Determine if the 14-ft.-long filled composite member illustrated below is

adequate for the indicated dead load compression and wind load tension. The

entire load is applied to the steel section.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

HSS10x6 x

E = 29,000 ksi

Fy = 46 ksi

Loading

PD = -32.0 kips

PW = 100.0 kips

Geometry

Height, L = 14 ft

Tension capacity of composite column design.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are referenced from Example I.5 from the AISC Design

Examples, Version 14.0.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

71.2

71.2

0.00%

430.5

430.0

0.12%

Output Parameter

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Materials:

ASTM A500 Grade B Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 46 ksi, Fu = 58 ksi

5000 psi normal weight concrete

Ec = 3,900 ksi, f c = 5 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf

Steel section dimensions:

HSS10x6x

H = 10.0 in, B = 6.00 in, t = 0.349 in, As = 10.4 in2

Design for Tension:

Required Compressive Strength:

The required compressive strength is (taking compression as negative and tension as

positive):

Available Tensile Strength:

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

COMPOSITE COLUMN DESIGN

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

Determine if the 14-ft.-long filled composite member illustrated below is

adequate for the indicated axial forces, shears, and moments. The composite

member consists of an ASTM A500 Grade B HSS with normal weight (145

lb/ft3) concrete fill having a specified compressive strength, f c = 5 ksi.

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties

HSS10x6 x

E = 29,000 ksi

Fy = 46 ksi

Loading

Pr = 129.0 kips

Mr = 120.0 kip-ft

Vr = 17.1 kips

Geometry

Height, L = 14 ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

Tension capacity of composite column design.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are referenced from Example I.1 from the AISC Design

Examples, Version 14.0.

ETABS

Independent

Percent

Difference

129

129

0.00%

342.9

354.78

-3.35%

120

120

0.00%

130.58

130.5

0.06%

1.19

1.18

0.85%

Output Parameter

Required Strength, Fu (k)

Interaction Equation H1-1a

CONCLUSION

The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Materials:

ASTM A500 Grade B Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 46 ksi, Fu = 58 ksi

5000 psi normal weight concrete

Ec = 3,900 ksi, f c = 5 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf

Section dimensions and properties:

HSS10x6x

H = 10.0 in, B= 6.00 in, t = 0.349 in

As = 10.4 in2, Isx = 137 in4, Zsx=33.8 in3, Isy = 61.8 in4

Concrete area

ht = 9.30 in., bt = 5.30 in., Ac = 49.2 in.2, Icx = 353 in4, Icy = 115 in4

Compression capacity:

Nominal Compressive Strength:

cPn= 354.78 kips as computed in Example I.4

Bending capacity:

Maximum Nominal Bending Strength:

Zsx = 33.8 in3

bi hi 2

Zc =

0.192 ri 3 where ri = t

4

5.30 (9.30) 2

3

=

0.192 (0.349)

=

114.7 in.3

4

0.85 f c Zc

2

0.85 5 115 1, 798.5 kip-in.

=46 33.8 +

=

=149.9 kip-ft

2

12 in./ft

M D = Fy Z sx +

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

0

=

hn

0.85 f c Ac

h

i

2(0.85 f c bi + 4 t Fy ) 2

0.85 5 49.2

9.30

2

= 1.205 4.65

=1.205 in.

Z cn =bi hn2 =5.30 (1.205) 2 =7.70 in.3

0.85 f c Z cn

2

0.85 5 7.76 1, 740 kip-in.

= 1,800 46 1.02

=

= 144.63 kip-ft

2

12 in./ft

M nx = M D Fy Z sn

b M nx =0.9 144.63 =

130.16 kip-ft

Interaction Equation H1-1a:

Pu

8 Mu

+

c Pn 9 b M n

1.0

129

8 120

+

1.0

354.78 9 130.16

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

REFERENCES

American Institute of Steel Construction. 1989. Manual of Steel ConstructionAllowable Stress Design. Chicago, Illinois.

ASCE, 7-02. ASCE Standard Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other

Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.

Bathe, K.J. and E.L. Wilson. 1972. Large Eigenvalue Problems in Dynamic

Analysis. Journal of the Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE. Vol. 98, No. EM6, Proc.

Paper 9433. December.

Computers and Structures, Inc. 2012. Analysis Reference Manual. Computers and

Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California.

DYNAMIC/EASE2. Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multistory Frame Structures

Using. DYNAMIC/EASE2, Engineering Analysis Corporation and Computers

and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California.

Engineering Analysis Corporation and Computers and Structures, Inc.,

DYNAMIC/EASE2. Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multistory Frame

Structures Using. DYNAMIC/EASE2, Berkeley, California.

Hanson, R.D. 1993. Supplemental Damping for Improved Seismic Performance.

Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 9, Number 3, 319-334.

International Code Council, Inc. 2000. International Building Code. Falls Church,

Virginia.

International Conference of Building Officials. 1997. Uniform Building Code.

Whittier, California.

Nagarajaiah, S., A.M. Reinhorn and M.C. Constantinou. 1991. 3D-Basis: Nonlinear

Dynamic Analysis of Three-Dimensional Base Isolated Structures: Part II,

Technical Report NCEER-91-0005. National Center for Earthquake

Engineering Research. State University of New York at Buffalo. Buffalo,

New York.

Paz, M. 1985. Structural Dynamics, Theory and Computations. Van Nostrand

Reinhold.

Peterson, F.E. 1981. EASE2, Elastic Analysis for Structural Engineering - Example

Problem Manual. Engineering Analysis Corporation. Berkeley, California.

REFERENCES

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME:

REVISION NO.:

ETABS

2

Prakash, V., G.A. Powell and S. Campbell. DRAIN-2DX. 1993. Base Program

Description and User Guide. Department of Civil Engineering. University of

California. Berkeley, California.

Prakash, V., G.A. Powell, and S. Campbell. 1993. DRAIN-2DX Base Program

Description and User Guide. Department of Civil Engineering. University of

California. Berkeley, California.

Przemieniecki, J.S. 1968. Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis. Mc-Graw-Hill.

Scholl, Roger E. 1993. Design Criteria for Yielding and Friction Energy

Dissipaters. Proceedings of ATC-17-1 Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive

Energy Dissipation, and Active Control. San Francisco, California. Vol. 2,

485-495. Applied Technology Council. Redwood City, California.

Tsai, K.H., H.W. Chen, C.P. Hong, and Y.F. Su. 1993. Design of Steel Triangular

Plate Energy Absorbers for Seismic-Resistant Construction. Earthquake

Spectra. Vol. 9, Number 3, 505-528.

Wilson, E.L. and A. Habibullah. 1992. SAP90, Sample Example and Verification

Manual, Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California.

Wilson, E.L., A.D. Kiureghian and E.P. Bayo. 1981. A Replacement for the SRSS

Method in Seismic Analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics, Vol. 9.

Zayas, V. and S. Low. 1990. A Simple Pendulum Technique for Achieving Seismic

Isolation. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 6, No. 2. Earthquake Engineering

Research Institute. Oakland, California.

REFERENCES

- Chapter 05Uploaded bystructures
- Lab2 Free VibrationUploaded byMohd Shahidan
- Slab BridgeUploaded byGolam Mostofa
- ME3281 Lab Session 2014Uploaded byLim Qing Wen
- A Novel Methodology Using Simplified Approaches for Identification of Cracks in BeamUploaded byAliceAlormenu
- Vibration Analysis of Asymmetric Shear Wall- FrameUploaded byValentini Triantafillidou
- Machine Foundation PPTUploaded bySuvankar
- analytical solution_dynamic responseUploaded byShelley Goel
- A Method for Calculating the Electromagnetic Noise of a Motor-driven Thin Blade FanUploaded byx3350
- Chapter 5 Rotor ModelingUploaded byewfsd
- Block FoundationUploaded byMai Kawayapanik
- Active Mass Damper to Control Vibration in a FootbridgeUploaded bynafartity
- Using Seismic Isolation Elements to Protect Cylindrical Steel Liquid Storage Tanks From Destructive Forces of Earthquakes[#97382]-83487Uploaded bycisco
- design of offshore structureUploaded byDINESH
- 1002 Full PaperUploaded byJing Cao
- New Twist on Interpreting Vibration Analysis FaultsUploaded bySérgio Cruz
- 02. Beam_02Uploaded byEngr Swapan
- Cezar Doca - Quasi Static Bending of BeamsUploaded bycezar_doca
- Lecture133342Uploaded byGabb Riel Palacios
- Ml 063050178Uploaded bysushilkumar
- IJERA 109Uploaded byBajrang Gupta
- Menu_635242558705201386_B.E Syll. & Structure MECHANICAL FINAL-1_29.10.2012Uploaded bygang
- Converting external load to massUploaded by970186cs
- 2_DOF_SMSUploaded byettypasewang
- Dynamic Characteristics of Welded StructuresUploaded bymvmagnoli
- 130675218-Beam-DesignUploaded byAadelaadel Fd
- Mech-Eng-26-1-2007_2Uploaded byIvana Ivi
- 2325.fullUploaded byNikola Andjelic
- Singhose 2010 Using Machine Vision and Hand-Motion Control to Improve Crane Operator PerformanceUploaded byPurnajyoti_Bhaumik
- ARE - Formulas to RememberUploaded byBhaiJan59

- Formula de Manning-DiAPOSITIVAUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- Formula de Manning-DiAPOSITIVAUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- LEY DEL SEIA, REGLAMENTO Y NORMAS COMPLEMENTARIAS)Uploaded byDimas Jack Soria Monsin
- 1. ESPECIF TECNICAS CHINCHAN IMPACTO AMBIENTAL.docUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- Memoria Descriptiva1Uploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- StruCAD3D ImportUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- ReleaseNotes.pdfUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- Table and Field Name Overwrites XML FileUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- 1. Especif Tecnicas Chinchan Agua PotableUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- Software VerificationUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- Software VerificationUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- Manual Excel-VBA Ing[1].CivilUploaded byJhpo
- StandaloneKey GuideUploaded byRyu Rey Roger
- StandaloneKey GuideUploaded byRyu Rey Roger
- Programando Para Autocad Con Vba -2Uploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- 1. DIAGNOSTICO DE LA CONSTRUCCIÓN (1).pdfUploaded byRhenan Diaz Meza
- LEY DEL SEIA, REGLAMENTO Y NORMAS COMPLEMENTARIAS)Uploaded byDimas Jack Soria Monsin
- 33 Utilidades Para Microsoft ExcelUploaded byHermis Ramos Espinal
- cotizacion-2Uploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- AguiarUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- Tdr PaucalinUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- Pesos EspecificosUploaded byram197
- Villa El SalvadorUploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- E.070- AlbañileríaUploaded byapi-3840942
- LOG10_20160124_1943Uploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- LOG10_20160124_1943Uploaded byAngel Simon Diaz
- Pre Dimension a Mien To 2006 - Ing. Roberto MoralesUploaded byFranklin Miguel Mejia Quiroz
- 11. NORMA E.030 DISEÑO SISMORRESISTENTEUploaded byJosé Luis Rodríguez Corro
- Pintado de Ben10Uploaded byAngel Simon Diaz

- Poplack1980 Contrasting Patterns of Code-Switching in Two-CommunitiesUploaded byNguyen Huyen My
- article_wjpps_1381684097-2Uploaded byNicolette Nuñez
- ABC of Oxygen Therapy in Acute CareUploaded byfuji
- ebookv1-c1.pdfUploaded byDhirendra Thapa
- The Volunteer's Back Pocket Guide to SexUploaded byGroup
- Uncertainty Slope Intercept of Least Squares FitUploaded byPerfectKey21
- ArbitrationUploaded bysayang11590
- Carvedoil Drug Study6Uploaded byRadicalRay
- ASP Student Meeting 2011-04-04Uploaded byMohamed Basyooni
- Ambient InterfacesUploaded byzahra_nia
- 6 2 artifact blog jvaughnUploaded byapi-324234986
- 11939500Uploaded bylvarelaespinoza
- Control-Plan-Template-2011.pdfUploaded bySenthil_K
- edfd220 inquiry unitUploaded byapi-318708475
- 1st Quarter Examination in Values 7-8 2015-2016Uploaded byMiriam Garcia Villegas
- Copy Editing ExampleUploaded bypobox606825
- Appilcation of Epi, Health Survi, Health Infor, And Role of NurseUploaded bysreekala
- FMSUploaded byanooperp
- Us 8238932Uploaded byAhmed Tarek
- Archetype TestUploaded byvilmoska
- United States v. Charles Daniels, 558 F.2d 122, 2d Cir. (1977)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- GEC-ESTRO Recommendations III for HDR BTUploaded byClaudia Morales Ulloa
- A03 S12 14 People vs. NicolasUploaded byBonD.J.Domingo
- Innovating to Learn, Learn to InnovateUploaded bymacovic2
- Prueba Diagnóstico Inglés 1 MedioUploaded byCatina Comicheo Levicoy
- Broadband in Sri LankaUploaded bygodgod1982
- KapilawasthuUploaded byCharuka Kumarapeli
- helbling2011.pdfUploaded bysinisala
- S/9772Uploaded bySalman Al-Abbasi
- Retention and RelapseUploaded byRana Sayed