Design of steel frames using SAP2000 –

Illustrative examples

CSI Portugal & Spain

 Contents

• Introduction
• Example 1 – Column
• Example 2 – Beam
• Example 3 – Beam-column
• Example 4 – Planar frame
• Example 5 – Spatial frame
• Example 6 – Short class 4 column
• Example 7 – Long class 4 column
• Conclusion

2
 Introduction

Scope:
• SAP2000 provides tools to both (i) check the safety of steel frame
structures according to Eurocode 3 and (ii) optimise their design
• In order to fully exploit the potential of SAP2000 tools, it is necessary
to know how to apply different EC 3 design methods in SAP2000

Objective:
• Present illustrative examples concerning the safety check and design
of steel members and structures using (i) EC 3 design formula
and (ii) different SAP2000 design tools (based on frame or shell FE)

3
 Example 1 – Column (1/3)
• Spatial column (flexural buckling):

• Simply supported for major and minor bending • Laterally unbraced

• Torsion prevented at both extremities • S 235 steel, IPE 200 profile (class 1)

IPE 200

SAP2000 frame FE model SAP2000 shell FE model

4
 Example 1 – Column (2/3)
• Column design according to EC 3 formulae and thin-walled rectangular shell FE models:

EC 3 formulae/ Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

SAP2000 frame design (SAP2000 shell) (SAP2000 shell) (SAP2000 shell)

Method: • Ayrton-Perry formula • 2nd order shell FEM • 2nd order shell FEM • 2nd order shell FEM
• imperf. factor from • equiv. lateral forces • equiv. lateral forces • geometric imperf.
buckling curves with imperf. according with imperf. equiv. to equiv. to buckling
to Table 5.1 (EC 3) buckling curves curves
N Rk  Af y  2.850  235  669 .75 kN
Ncr. z   2 EIz L2   2  210 1.420 3.52
 240.25 kN
z  N Rk N cr. z  669.75 240.25
 1.670

Imperf.: Buckling curve b

e0  L 250 e0   (  0.2)Wel. z A e0   (  0.2)Wel. z A
  0.34
 14 mm  4.98 mm  4.98 mm
 z    , z   0.2867
p0  8N Ed e0 L2 p0  8N Ed e0 L2
N b.Rd   z N Rd
 1.74 kN / m  0.618 kN / m
 0.2867  669.75
 192.02 kN P0  p0 L  6.08 kN P0  p0 L  2.163 kN

 x.m ax  f y N Ed N b.Rd  232 .53 MPa

5
 Example 1 – Column (3/3)
• Flexural buckling analysis (using frame FE): Nr FE Ncr.z [kN] Diff. (vs Ncr.shell)
• Column flexural buckling load may be determined using 1 292.11 +21.9%
frame model (e.g., for arbitrary support conditions)
3 240.17 +0.2%
• Discretisation in at least 3 FE is recommended
(e.g., using SAP2000 automatic mesh) 6 239.79 +0.05%

• Column resistance results:

EC 3 formulae/ Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Diff. Diff. Diff.
SAP2000 frame design (SAP2000 shell) (SAP2000 shell) (SAP 2000 shell)

Ncr.z [kN] 240.25 239.68 -0.2% 239.68 -0.2% 239.68 -0.2%

x.max [MPa] 232.53 538.64 +132% 236.12 +1.5% 232.29 -0.1%
Nb.Rd [kN] 192.02 144.03 -25.0% 189.69 -1.2% 190.59 -0.8%

• Shell models don’t consider the exact cross-section but a reduced one (conservative)
• Shell models considers shear flexibility (more accurate)
• Model 1 is too conserv. due to high imperf. values of Table 5.1 (EC3)
• Shell models 2 and 3 are accurate when compared to EC 3 formulae
• Differences in buckling resistance are usually lower than
differences in stresses Longitudinal normal
stress (Model 3)
6
 Example 2 – Beam (1/3)
• Spatial beam (lateral torsional buckling):

• Simply supported for major and minor bending • Laterally unbraced

• Torsion prevented and warping free at supports • S 235 steel, IPE 200 profile (class 1)
• Loaded in major bending plane

pEd L2
M y.Ed . m ax   30 .62 kNm
8
IPE 200
PEd  pEd L  70 kN

SAP2000 frame FE model SAP2000 shell FE model

7
 Example 2 – Beam (2/3)
EC 3 SAP2000 Model A Model B
formulae frame design (SAP2000 shell) (SAP2000 shell)

 2 EI z I w L2GI t M cr.0  43 .26 kNm M cr  43 .03 kNm

M cr.0  
L2 I z  2 EI z
 2  210 1.42 0.01299 3.52  0.0692 Always
  considers C1=1
3.52 1.42  2  2.6 1.42 by default
 43.25 kNm

M cr  C1M cr.0  1.12  43 .25  48 .44 kNm M cr  M cr.0  43 .26 kNm

Buckling curve a:  LT  0.21  LT  0.21 Imperfection in minor axis bending:

e0  L 500  7 mm e0  e0.column  4.98 mm
Elastic design Plastic design
M y .el. Rd  W y .el f y  45 .66 kNm M y . pl . Rd  51 .94 kNm M y . pl . Rd  51 .94 kNm (+14%) M y .el. Rd  44 .17 kNm (-3.3%)

LT  M Rd M cr  0.971 LT  1.035 LT  1.096 Shell models consider a

reduced cross-section
 LT    LT , LT   0.686  LT  0.640  LT  0.599

M b. Rd   LT M Rd  31 .32 kNm M b. Rd  33 .26 kNm M b. Rd  31 .11 kNm M b. Rd  28 .01 kNm M b. Rd  29 .86 kNm

 x.max  f y M Ed M b.Rd  x.m ax  279 .5 MPa  x.m ax  246 .3 MPa

 229.7 MPa
8
 Example 2 – Beam (3/3)
• Beam resistance results:

EC 3 – elastic EC 3 – plastic SAP2000 Diff. Model A Diff. Model B Diff.

Diff.
design design frame design (plast.) (SAP2000 shell) (elast.) (SAP 2000 shell) (elast.)

Mcr
[kN]
48.44 48.44 0% 43.26 -10.7% 43.03 -11.2% 43.03 -11.2%

x.max
[MPa]
229.7 - - - - 279.5 +21.7% 246.3 +7.2%

Mb.Rd
[kN]
31.32 33.26 +6.2% 31.11 -6.5% 28.01 -10.6% 29.86 -4.7%

• SAP2000 frame design yields conservative results (-6.5% in bending resistance) by

considering the most unfavourable bending moment distribution (uniform)
• Shell models consider a reduced cross-section (lower buckling loads and resistances)
• Shell models consider shear and local/distortional deformation when
determining buckling loads (more accurate)
• Models A (and B) give accurate (reasonable) resistances when
compared to EC 3 elastic results
• A 14% increase from the elastic to the plastic moment 3D
In-plane
deformation
resistance only results in a 6% increase in the member deformation
(Model A) resistance. When instability plays an important role, (Model A)
plastic strength reserve cannot be fully exploited 9
 Example 3 – Beam-column (1/5)
• Spatial beam-column (flexural and lateral torsional buckling):

• Simply supported for major and minor bending • Laterally unbraced

• Torsion prevented and warping free at supports • S 235 steel, IPE 500 profile (class 1)
• Loaded axially and in major and minor bending planes

SAP 2000 shell FE model

Maximum major axis p z . Ed L2

bending moment: M y.Ed .m ax   100  198 .8 kNm
8

10
 Example 3 – Beam-column (2/5)
Buckling loads

 2 EI z I w L2GI t
N cr. z   EI z L  3157 kN
2 2 M cr.0    900.4 kNm
L2 I z  2 EI z
Ncr. y   2 EI y L2  71040kN M cr  C1M cr.0  1.2  900 .4  1080 .5 kNm

EC3 design SAP2000 frame Shell model

Diff. Diff.
formulae design (SAP2000 shell)

Ncr.z [kN] 3157 3157 0% 3085 -2.1%

Ncr.y [kN] 71040 71040 0% 57711 -16.9%
Mcr.0 [kN] 900.4 900.5 0% 861.2 -4.4%
Mcr [kN] 1080.5 900.5 -16.7% 913.3 -15.5%

• EC3 design formulae and SAP2000 frame design considers exact web-flange joint geometry
and neglects shear deformability, resulting in higher buckling loads when compared to the
shell model

• C1 factor from tables is unconservative when compared with numerical results (1.2 vs 1.06)

11
 Example 3 – Beam-column (3/5)
Flexural buckling resistance

EC 3 design formulae SAP2000 frame design

minor axis: major axis: minor axis: major axis:
z  N Rk Ncr. z  2726 3157  0.929 y  2726 71040  0.196  0.2 z  0.929 y  0.196

  0.34   0.21   0.34   0.21

 z    , z   0.642 y 1  z  0.642 y 1

N b. z .Rd   z N Rd  1751 kN N b. y . Rd   y N Rd  2726 kN N b. z . Rd  1751 kN N b. y . Rd  2726 kN

Lateral torsional buckling resistance

EC 3 - elastic EC 3 - plastic SAP2000 frame design

+ 14%
M el. y . Rd  Wel. y f y  453 .1 kNm M pl . y . Rd  515 .6 kNm M pl . y . Rd  515 .6 kNm

LT  M el. y.Rd M cr  453.1 1080.5  0.648 LT  M pl. y.Rd M cr  515.6 1080.5  0.691 LT  0.757

 LT  0.34 (buckling curve b)  LT  0.34

 LT    , LT   0.812  LT    , LT   0.789  LT  0.751

+ 11%
M b.Rd   LT M Rd  368 .1 kNm M b. Rd   LT M Rd  406 .8 kNm M b. Rd  387 .1 kNm

12
 Example 3 – Beam-column (4/5)
Beam-column resistance (Method 2)

EC 3 design formulae SAP2000 frame design

C my  0.925 C my  0.924

Cmz  0.6 Cmz  0.6

CmLT  Cmy  0.925 CmLT  Cmy  0.924

 
k yy  Cmy 1  0.6 y
N Ed   0.9251  0.6  0.2  500   0.945 k yy  0.924
 N b. y.Rd   2726 
 

 
k zz  Cmz 1  2z  0.6 Ed   0.61  2  0.929  0.6
N 500  k zz  0.816
  0.816
 N b. z.Rd   1751

k yz  0.6k zz  0.6  0.816  0.489 k yz  0.489

0.1z N Ed 0.1 0.929 500

k zy  1   1  0.961 k zy  0.961
CmLT  0.25 Nb.z.Rd 0.925  0.25 1751

N Ed M y.Ed M 500 198.8 25

eq. (6.61):  k yy  k yz z.Ed   0.945  0.489  0.800  1
Nb. y.Rd M b.Rd M z.Rd 2726 406.8 78.96

N Ed M y.Ed M 500 198.8 25

eq. (6.62):  k zy  k zz z.Ed   0.961  0.816  1.013  1 1.028  1
Nb. z.Rd M b.Rd M z.Rd 1751 406.8 78.96
13
 Example 3 – Beam-column (5/5)
SAP2000 shell FE model

• Imperfection (minor axis): e0     0.2 Wel. z A  4.58 mm

• Failure parameter: FP   x. m ax f y

Beam-column resistance results:

EC 3 – plastic SAP2000 frame Model 1 - elastic

Diff. Diff.
(method 2) design (method 2) (SAP2000 shell)

Failure
1.013 1.028 +1.5% 1.169 +15.4%
parameter

• EC3 design formulae and SAP2000 frame design yield very similar results

• SAP2000 shell model yields moderately conservative results

because it (i) is based on elastic design and (ii) considers a
reduced cross-section

3D
deformation
(shell model)
14
 Example 4 – Frame (1/7)

• Planar frame:
1
• Laterally braced at joints

• Major axis bending in the frame plane

HEA 180

HEA 180
6
• Pinned to the ground
• Lateral and lateral torsional
buckling not prevented!
• S 355 steel [m]
12

• Load combinations: • ‘Dead + Wind’ and ‘Dead + Life’ (1.35Gk + 1.5Qk)

Dead load Wind load Live load

15
 Example 4 – Frame (2/7)
• Buckling analysis:

• Wind combination • Live load combination

 cr  55 .28 10 No P-D effects  cr  5.56 10 P-D effects must

to consider be considered

• Global imperfection (life load combination):

Height:
2 2
h  6m h    0.8165
h 6

Nr columns:
 1  1
m2  m  0.51    0.51    0.8660
 m  2
Global imperf. as equiv.
lateral forces
Imperfection angle: (live load comb.)

  0 h m  1  0.8165  0.8660  0.003536 rad

200

Equiv. lateral force:

H  N Ed  0.003536  48 .59  0.1718 kN
16
 Example 4 – Frame (3/7)
• P-D analysis (live load combination):

N
Deformed config. [kN]
[m]

My Vz
[kN.m] [kN.m]

17
 Example 4 – Frame (4/7)
• EC3 design check (life load combination):

• All members satisfy EC3 design formulae (FP<1)

18
 Example 4 – Frame (5/7)
• 1st order analysis (wind load combination):

N
Deformed config. [kN]
[m]

My Vz
[kN.m] [kN.m]

19
 Example 4 – Frame (6/7)
• EC3 design check (wind load combination):

• All members satisfy EC3 design formulae (FP<1)

20
 Example 4 – Frame (7/7)
• EC3 automatic design (wind and live load combinations):
Not safe ! Safe

Run analyses
Initial sections (all load comb.)
estimate
Modified
Columns: HEA160 sections
Beams: IPE 200 (automatic)

Sections to be
modified by user
due to symmetry

Final sections
Safe
Columns: HEA180
Beams: IPE 220

21
 Example 5 – Frame (1/4)
• Spatial frame:

• Longitudinally braced
• Pinned to the ground
• S 355 steel
• HEA 180 (columns), IPE 220 (transv. beams),
IPE 100 (long. beams), 4 mm cable (bracing)
1

SAP2000 frame FE model

6

[m]

• Note:
• Two cross • Load combination:
cables may be
substituted by one • ‘Dead + Live’ (1.35Gk + 1.5Qk)
rod with the same
diameter that resists • Load values and configuration
tension and compression equal to example 4
22
 Example 5 – Frame (2/4)
• Buckling analysis:

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

Torsion Longitudinal sway Transversal sway

b.1  2.37 b.2  2.82 b.3  5.37

Option 1: increase bracing stiffness until 2nd order analysis is no

 cr  b.1  2.37  10 longer necessary for torsion and longitudinal sway (cr>10)
Option 2: perform the spatial frame 2nd order analysis with imperf.

23
 Example 5 – Frame (3/4)
Option 1
• 4 mm cable
Buckling Transversal sway Torsion Longitudinal sway
analysis
• 10 mm cable b.1  5.37  10 b.6  13 .58  10 b.31  17 .16  10

• Transversal sway 2nd order • No torsion or longitudinal

effects and imperfections already 2nd order effects and
checked in Example 4 imperfections to consider

Option 2
• Global imperfection:
Height: Imperfection angle:
2 2
h  6m h    0.8165
h 6   0 h m  1  0.8165  0.7638  0.003118 rad
200

Nr columns: Equiv. lateral force:

 1  1
m6  m  0.51    0.51    0.7638
 m  6 H  N Ed  0.003536  48 .91  0.1525 kN

24
 Example 5 – Frame (4/4)
Option 2 (cont.)
Torsion Longitudinal sway

Imperfection:

Members
resistance: OK OK

Cable N Rd  Af y  0.07854  355  27 .88 kN

resistance:
N Ed . m ax  2.67 kN  N Rd OK N Ed . m ax  2.56 kN  N Rd OK

25
 Example 6 – Short class 4 column (1/4)
• Square hollow section short column:

• Simply supported • S 355 steel, welded SHS profile, class 4 (compression)

SHS 300
6
300

[mm]
300
• Objective: determine the column buckling resistance

SAP2000 frame FE model SAP2000 shell FE model

26
 Example 6 – Short class 4 column (2/4)
• Effective cross-section:

Gross section: Classification (pure compression):

A  7.056 103 m2 c t  288 / 6  48 42  42  0.81  34

6 I y  I z  I d  1.017 104 m4 c t  48  42  34 Class 4 walls

300 4
Wel. y  Wel.z  6.76410 m 4

Wel.d  4.783  10 4 m 4 Plate slenderness:

[mm] fy b t 288 6
p     1.043
300  cr 28.4 k 28.4  0.81 4

Effective section (pure compression): Reduction factor:

 p  0.0553   1.043  0.0553  1

3    0.7565
Aeff  5.61610 m 2
 p2 1.0432
I eff . y  0.8586104 m4
Weff . y  5.689104 m3
Effective width:
109
115
Weff .d  4.085104 m3 beff b 0.7565  288
   109 mm
2 2 2
[mm]
115 27
 Example 6 – Short class 4 column (3/4)
• Column design according to EC 3 formulae and thin-walled rectangular shell FE models:

EC 3 formulae SAP2000 design Model 1 Model 2

(SAP2000 frame) (SAP2000 shell) (SAP2000 shell)

Method: • Ayrton-Perry formula • 2nd order shell FEM • 2nd order shell FEM
• imperf. factor from buckling curves • no global imperf. • no global imperf.
• local geometric • local geometric
N pl . Rk  Af y  7.056  355  2505 kN N pl . Rk  2505 kN imperf. equiv. to imperf. according to
N eff . Rk  Aeff f y  5.616  355  1994 kN local buckling Table 3.1 (EC 3-1-5)
N cr  17205 kN
curves
Ncr. z   2 EIz L2   2  210 101.7 3.52
 17207 kN
z  N eff .Rk N cr. z  1994 17207 z  0.337 12 longitudinal
 0.3404 half-waves

Imperf.: Buckling curve b

  0.34   0.34
e0   p ( p  0.8)t 6 e0  a 200
 z    , z   0.9491  1  z  0.95
 0.13(1.043  0.8)  6 6  1.47 mm
N b.Rd   z N eff .Rd N b. Rd  1857 kN  0.032 mm
 0.94911994
 1892 kN
Flexural buckling of
minute importance 28
 Example 6 – Short class 4 column (4/4)
• Column resistance results:

SAP2000 design Model 1 Model 2

EC 3 formulae Diff. Diff. Diff.
(SAP2000 frame) (SAP2000 shell) (SAP 2000 shell)

Ncr.local [kN] - - - 2258 - 2258 -

Nb.Rd [kN] 2135/ +12.8% 1316/ -30.4%
Lower /upper 1892 1857 -1.8%
+17.8% +1.4%
bound 2303 1918

• Shell models lower and upper bounds correspond to first yielding due to plate bending and
corner yielding due to membrane normal stress resultant (the real resistance is between the two)
• SAP2000 design is very accurate when compared to EC 3 formulae
• Shell models 1 and 2 are reasonably accurate when compared to EC 3 formulae

• Model 2 is conserv. when compared to Model 1 because it considers a higher imperfection

Upper bound Lower bound

Deformation analysis (Model 1)
analysis (Model 1) (Model 1) 29
 Example 7 – Long class 4 column (1/5)
• Square hollow section long column:

• Simply supported • S 355 steel, welded SHS profile, class 4 (compression)

SHS 300
6
300

[mm]
300
• Objective: determine the column buckling resistance

SAP2000 frame FE model SAP2000 shell FE model

30
 Example 7 – Long class 4 column (2/5)
• Column design according to EC 3 formulae and thin-walled rectangular shell FE models:

EC 3 formulae SAP2000 design Model 1 Model 2

(SAP2000 frame) (SAP2000 shell) (SAP2000 shell)

Method: • Ayrton-Perry formula • 2nd order shell FEM • 2nd order shell FEM
• imperf. factor from buckling curves • global imperf. from • global imperf. from
buckling curves Table 5.1 (EC 3-1-1)
N pl . Rk  Af y  7.056  355  2505 kN N pl . Rk  2505 kN

N eff . Rk  Aeff f y  5.616  355  1994 kN

N cr  4301 kN e0   (  0.2)Weff .d Aeff e0  L 250
Ncr. z   2 EIz L2   2  210 101.7 7 2
 4302 kN  0.34 (0.6808  0.2)  408 .5 5.616  28 mm
z  0.674  11 .89 mm
z  N eff .Rk N cr. z  1994 4302
 0.6808
• local imperf. equiv. • local geometric
Imperf.: Buckling curve b to local buckling imperf. according to
  0.34   0.34
curves Table 3.1 (EC 3-1-5)
 z    , z   0.7944  1  z  0.798
e0   p ( p  0.8)t 6 e0  a 200
N b. Rd   z N eff . Rd N b. Rd  1559 kN 12
 0.13(1.043  0.8)  6 6  1.47 mm
 0.7944 1994 longitudinal
Flexural buckling of  0.032 mm half-waves
 1584 kN significant importance
(local-global buckling
31
interaction occurs)
 Example 7 – Long class 4 column (3/5)
• Re-determine effective cross-section for load NEd=1584 kN:

a) Determine bending moment in the critical cross-section:

N Ed M Ed 1584 M Ed
 1   1  M Ed  62 .43 kNm
N pl . Rd f yWel.d 2505 355  0.4783

b) Determine stress distribution in the gross cross-section:

N Ed 1584 M Ed 62 .43
 mean    224.5 MPa D    130 .5 MPa
A 7.056 Wd . Rd 0.4783
 m ax   mean  D  355 .0 MPa  m in   mean  D  94 .0 MPa

c) Walls reduction factors:

224.5 8 .2
Walls AB & BD:   0.632 K   4.88
355 1.05 
b t 288 6  p  0.0553  
p    0.945   0.835
28.4 k 28.4  0.81 4.88  p2
8.2 b t 288 6
Walls AC & CD: 
94.0
 0.419 K   5.58 p    0.883
224.5 1.05  28.4 k 28.4  0.81 5.58

 com.Ed 224.5  p  0.0553  

 p.red   p  0.883  0.702   1.043    1
f yd 355  p2 32
 Example 7 – Long class 4 column (4/5)
• Re-determine effective cross-section for load NEd=1584 kN:

beff  b  0.835  288  240 mm Effective section (NEd + MEd):

2 2
be1  beff  240  110 mm
5  5  0.632 Aeff  6.480103 m2
be 2  beff  be1  240  110  130 mm 130 I eff .d  0.9388104 m4
110
Weff . y  5.689104 m3
[mm]
Weff .d  4.265104 m3

• Column design according to EC 3-1-1 formulae:

Imperf.:
N eff . Rk  Aeff f y  6.480  355  2300 kN
Buckling curve b
z  N eff .Rk N cr. z  2300 4302   0.34
 0.7312  z    , z   0.7658  1

N b. Rd   z N eff . Rd
 0.7658  2300
 1761kN
33
 Example 7 – Long class 4 column (5/5)
• Column resistance results:

SAP2000 design Model 1 Model 2

EC 3 formulae Diff. Diff. Diff.
(SAP2000 frame) (SAP2000 shell) (SAP 2000 shell)

Ncr.local [kN] - - - 2253 - 2253 -

Nb.Rd [kN] 1928/ +9.5% 1016/ -42.3%
Lower /upper 1761 1559 -11.5%
+13.6% -23.4%
bound 2001 1349

• Shell models lower and upper bounds correspond to first yielding due to plate bending and
corner yielding due to membrane normal stress resultant (the real resistance is between the two)

• SAP2000 design is slightly conservative when compared to EC 3 procedure because it does not
iterate to find effective cross-section (considers the unfavourable case of pure compression)

• Shell model 1 is reasonably accurate when compared to analytical calculations

• Shell model 2 is too conservative due to considering too large imperfections

34
 Conclusion

• It is not possible to fully exploit the plastic strength reserve of members

prone to instability. An elastic design (e.g., using shell FE) is usually not
too conservative, even for members with class 1 cross-sections

• SAP2000 shell design is valid for arbitrary thin-walled members

(e.g., tapered, with non-symmetrical cross-sections, etc) and support
conditions, while EC3 design formulae are limited to bisymmetrical
simply supported uniform members

• SAP2000 design tools for steel frame structures are practical, fast and
on the safe side. It is possible not only to (i) check if the members satisfy
the EC3 resistance requirements, but also (ii) optimise their sections

35
 References

• ECCS Technical Committee 8, Rules for Members Stability in EN 1993 – 1 – 1,

Background documentation and design guidelines

36