Verification Example Etabs PDF

Software Verification Examples
Software Verification Examples

For ETABS®
ISO ETA020218M6 Rev. 0

Proudly developed in the United States of America March 2018
Copyright
Copyright  Computers & Structures, Inc., 1978-2018

All rights reserved.
The CSI Logo® and ETABS®are 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.
THE INFORMATION PRODUCED BY THE SOFTWARE MUST BE CHECKED BY A

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
2 Three-Story Plane Frame, Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis
3 Three-Story Plane Frame, Code-Specific Static Lateral Load Analysis
4 Single Story Three-Dimensional Frame, Dynamic Response Spectrum

Analysis
5 Three-Story Three-Dimensional Braced Frame, Dynamic Response

Spectrum Analysis
6 Nine-Story Ten-Bay Plane Frame, Eigenvalue Analysis
7 Seven-Story Plane Frame, Gravity and Lateral Loads Analysis
8 Two-Story Three-Dimensional Frame, Dynamic Response Spectrum

Analysis
9 Two-Story Three-Dimensional Unsymmetrical Building Frame, Dynamic

Response Spectrum Analysis
10 Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements, Nonlinear Time History

Analysis
i
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
11 Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements, Nonlinear Time

History Analysis
12 Pounding of Two Planar Frames, Nonlinear Time History Analysis
13 Base Isolated Two-Story 3D Frame, Nonlinear Time History Analysis
14 Friction Pendulum Base-Isolated 3D Frame, Nonlinear Time History

Analysis
15 Wall Object Behavior, Static Lateral Loads Analysis
ii
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
Design Examples
Steel Frame
AISC 360-05 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
AISC 360-05 Example 002 Build-up Wide Flange Member Under

Compression

Compression

Compression
AISC ASD-89 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
AISC ASD-89 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Compression
AISC LRFD-93 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
AISC LRFD-93 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Combined

Compression & Biaxial Bending
AS 4100-1998 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression
AS 4100-1998 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
AS 4100-1998 Example 003 Wide Flange Member Under Combined

Compression & Bending
BS 5950-2000 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
BS 5950-2000 Example 002 Square Tube Member Under Compression &

Bending
CSA S16-09 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression &
Bending
Bending
Bending
Bending
iii
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
EC 3-2005 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Combined

EN 3-2005 Example 002 Wide Flange Section Under Bending
EN 3-2005 Example 003 Wide Flange Section Under Combined

IS 800-2007 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression
IS 800-2007 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
IS 800-2007 Example 003 Wide Flange Member Under Combined

Compression & Biaxial Bending
KBC 2009 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
KBC 2009 Example 002 Build-up Wide Flange Member Under

Compression
NTC 2008 Example 001 Wide Flange Section Under Combined

NTC 2008 Example 002 Wide Flange Section Under Combined

NZS 3404-1997 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression
NZS 3404-1997 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
NZS 3404-1997 Example 003 Wide Flange Member Under Combined

Concrete Frame
ACI 318-08 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
ACI 318-08 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
AS 3600-2009 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
AS 3600-2009 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
iv
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
BS 8110-1997 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
BS 8110-1997 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
CSA A23.3-04 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
CSA A23.3-04 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
CSA A23.3-14 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
CSA A23.3-14 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
EN 2-2004 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
EN 2-2004 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
HK CP-2013 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
HK CP-2013 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
IS 456-2000 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
IS 456-2000 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
NTC 2008 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
NTC 2008 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
KBC 2009 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
KBC 2009 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
KCI 1999 Example 001 Beam Moment Strength Using Equivalent

Rectangular Stress Distribution
KCI 1999 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
RCDF 2004 Example 001 Beam Moment Strength Using Equivalent

Rectangular Stress Distribution
RCDF 2004 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
NZS 3101-2006 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
NZS 3101-2006 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
SS CP 65-1999 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
SS CP 65-1999 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
v
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
TS 500-2000 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
TS 500-2000 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
Shear Wall
ACI 318-08 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for Wall
ACI 530-11 Masonry–WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for Wall
ACI 530-11 Masonry–WALL-002 P-M Interaction Check for Wall
AS 360-09 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
AS 360-09 WALL-002 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
BS 8110-97 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
BS 8110-97 WALL-002 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
CSA A23.3-04 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
EC 2-2004 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
EC 2-2004 WALL-002 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
Hong Kong CP-13 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
Hong Kong CP-13 WALL-002 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
Indian IS 456-2000 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
Indian IS 456-2000 WALL-002 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
vi
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
KBC 2009 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for Wall
KBC 2009 WALL-002 P-M Interaction Check for Wall
Mexican RCDF-04 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
Mexican RCDF-04 WALL-002 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
NZS-3103-2006 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
NZS-3103-2006 WALL-002 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
Singapore CP65-99-001 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
Singapore CP65-99-002 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
Turkish TS 500-2000 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
Turkish TS 500-2000 WALL-002 P-M Interaction Check for a Wall
Composite Beam
AISC 360-05 Example 001 Composite Girder Design
AISC DG02 Example 001 Steel Beam with Opening
AISC DG02 Example 002 Steel Beam with Opening
AISC DG02 Example 003 Composite Beam with Opening
AISC DG02 Example 004 Composite Beam with Opening
AISC DG11 2nd Edition Example Floor Vibration Check

001
BS 5950-90 Example 001 Steel Designers Manual Sixth Edition – Design of

Simply Supported Composite Beam
CSA S16-09 Example 001 Handbook of Steel Construction Tenth Edition –

Composite Beam
vii
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
EC 4-2004 Example 001 Steel Designers Manual Seventh Edition –

Design of Simply Supported Composite Beam
Composite Column
AISC 360-10 Example 001 Composite Column Design
Slab
ACI 318-08 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
ACI 318-08 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
ACI 318-08 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
AS 3600-2009 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
AS 3600-2009 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
AS 3600-2009 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
BS 8110-1997 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
BS 8110-1997 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
BS 8110-1997 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
CSA A23.3-04 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
CSA A23.3-04 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
CSA A23.3-04 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
CSA A23.3-14 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
viii
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
CSA A23.3-14 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
CSA A23.3-14 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
EN 2-2004 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
EN 2-2004 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
EN 2-2004 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
HK CP-2013 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
HK CP-2013 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
HK CP-2013 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
IS 456-2000 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
IS 456-2000 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
IS 456-2000 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
NTC 2008 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
NTC 2008 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
NTC 2008 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
NZS 3101-2006 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
NZS 3101-2006 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
NZS 3101-2006 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
SS CP 65-1999 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
SS CP 65-1999 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
SS CP 65-1999 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
TS 500-2000 PT-SL Ex001 Post-Tensioned Slab Design
TS 500-2000 RC-PN Ex001 Slab Punching Shear Design
TS 500-2000 RC-SL Ex001 Slab Flexural Design
References
ix
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 8
ETABS Software Verification Log

Revision
Number Date Description
0 19 Apr 2013 Initial release of ETABS, Version 13.0.0
• Minor documentation errors in the Verification manuals have
been corrected
• Minor improvements have been made to some of the
examples, and some example file names have been changed
1 9 July 2013
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 response-
spectrum 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.
2 11 Apr 2014
• 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.
i
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 8

Revision
• 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
3 3 Nov 2014 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 hand-
calculation 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
ii
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 8

Revision
ETABS was updated for a change in v13.2.0 under Incident
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 pre-
composite deflection in the Results Comparison table was
corrected.
• Composite Beam Design EC-4-2004 Example 001. The hand-
calculation 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
• Shear Wall Design example Eurocode 2-2004 Wall-002 has

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
4 7 Jan 2015 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
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 8

Revision
• Added SAFE design verification examples for slab design,
punching shear design, and post-tension design for all codes
5 7 July 2016
supported in both SAFE and ETABS.
• Updated benchmark results for Example 14 due to changes

6 3 March 2017 reported under Incident #73043.
• Updated benchmarks (number of shear studs) for Composite

Beam Design examples AISC-360-05 Example 001 and AISC-
7 19 June 2017 360-10 Example 002 due to changes reported under Incident
#102064.
• Added Steel Frame Design examples AISC-360-16 Example

001 and AISC-360-16 Example 002 for the addition of the
new AISC 360-16 steel frame design code under Incident #
200689.
• Added Composite Beam Design examples AISC-360-16
Example 001 and AISC-360-16 Example 002 for the addition
of the new AISC 360-16 composite beam design code under
Incident # 200897. Documentation for Example AISC 360-10
Example 002 was updated for cosmetic consistency with the
new examples, but no results have changed.
• Added Composite Beam Design examples AISC DG02
Example 001, AISC DG02 Example 002, AISC DG02
30 January Example 003, and AISC DG02 Example 004 for the new
8
2018 design of steel beams with web openings as implemented
under Incident #208550.
• Added Composite Beam Design example AISC DG11 2nd
Edition Example 001 for the implementation of AISC Design
Guide 11 2nd Edition vibration check under Incident #29003.
• Removed the Slab Design examples for the AS 3600-2001 and
Hong Kong CP 2004 codes, which have been removed from
the software under Incident #210114.
• Updated the documentation for examples CSA S16-09
Example 002 and CSA S16-14 Example 002 to reflect changes
in hand calculations due to Incidents #201669 and #204405,
although these changes did not affect the final design results
obtained by the software.
iv
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 8

Revision
• Updated the documentation for example EN 2-2004 Example
002 to reflect changes in design results produced by the
software due to Incident #203061. The change was
insignificant for the purposes of this verification example.
v
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
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 Result 
Percent Difference  100   1
 Independent Result 
INTRODUCTION 1
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
For examples with multiple versions of meshing density of area elements, only the models
with the finest meshing density are expected to fall within Exact or Acceptable limits.
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.
Slab examples S01 through S07 verify the accuracy of the elements and the solution
algorithms used in ETABS. These examples compare displacements and member internal
forces computed by ETABS with known theoretical solutions for various slab support and
load conditions.
Slab examples S08 through S014 verify the applicability of ETABS in calculating design
moments in slabs by comparing results for practical slab geometries with experimental
results and/or results using ACI 318-95 recommendations.
Slab design examples verify the design algorithms used in ETABS for flexural, shear
design of beam; flexural and punching shear of reinforced concrete slab; and flexural
design and serviceability stress checks of post-tensioned slab by comparing ETABS results
with hand calculations.
Analysis: Of the fifteen Analysis problems, eight showed exact agreement while the
remaining seven showed acceptable agreement between ETABS and the cited independent
sources.
Analysis – Slab: All fourteen slab Analysis problems showed acceptable agreement
between ETABS and the cited independent sources.
Design – Steel Frame: All 32 Steel Frame Design problems showed acceptable agreement
between ETABS and the cited independent sources.
Design – Concrete Frame: All 30 Concrete Frame Design problems showed acceptable
agreement between ETABS and the cited independent sources.
Design – Shear Wall: All 30 of the Shear Wall Design problems showed acceptable
Summary of Examples 2
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
Design – Composite Beam: The 9 Composite Beam Design problems showed acceptable
Design – Composite Column: The 3 Composite Column Design problems showed

acceptable agreement between ETABS and cited independent sources.
Design – Slab: The 69 Slab Design problems showed acceptable agreement between
ETABS and cited independent sources.
Summary of Examples 3
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
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.
MESHING OF AREA ELEMENTS

It is important to adequately mesh area elements to obtain satisfactory results. The art of
creating area element models includes determining what constitutes an adequate mesh. In
general, meshes should always be two or more elements wide. Rectangular elements give
the best results and the aspect ratio should not be excessive. A tighter mesh may be needed
in areas where the stress is high or the stress is changing quickly.
When reviewing results, the following process can help determine if the mesh is adequate.
Pick a joint in a high stress area that has several different area elements connected to it.
Review the stress reported for that joint for each of the area elements. If the stresses are
similar, the mesh likely is adequate. Otherwise, additional meshing is required. If you
choose to view the stresses graphically when using this process, be sure to turn off the
stress averaging feature when displaying the stresses.
CONCLUSIONS 4
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 explic-
itly input.
Geometry, Properties and Loading

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 100k 100k 100k 50k

Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq.
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
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Technical Features of ETABS Tested

 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 Construc-
tion 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 Location ETABS Theoretical
Bending Moments End I 0.00 0.00
¼ Point 1,687.50 1,687.50
½ point 3,375.00 3,375.00
¾ point -337.50 -337.50
End J -4,050.00 -4,050.00
Shear Forces End I -31.25 -31.25
¼ Point -31.25 -31.25
½ point 68.75 68.75
¾ point 68.75 68.75
End J 68.75 68.75
Table 1-1 Comparison of Results for Beam B1 – Case II

Load Case II
(Uniformly Distributed Load)
Bending Moments End I 0.00 0.00
¼ Point 2,430.00 2,430.00
½ point 2,430.00 2,430.00
¾ point 0.00 0.00
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Table 1-1 Comparison of Results for Beam B1 – Case II

Load Case II
(Uniformly Distributed Load)
End J -4,860.00 -4,860.00
Shear Forces End I -67.50 -67.50
¼ Point -22.50 -22.50
½ point 22.50 22.50
¾ point 67.50 67.50
End J 112.50 112.50
Computer File
The input data file for this example is Example 01.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 theoret-
ical data.
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 defor-
mations, 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 infor-
mation to obtain the modal responses (Paz 1985). The modal responses for story displace-
ments 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
Typical story mass = 0.4 kip-sec2/in
The column is modeled to have infinite axial area, so that axial deformation is neglected. Al-
so, zero column shear area is input to trigger the ETABS option of neglecting shear defor-
mations. 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.
Three-Story Plane Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis 2-1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Figure 2-1 Three-Story Plane Frame
Technical Features in ETABS Tested

 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 Ta-
ble 2-1 with ETABS results.
Table 2-1 Comparison of Results for Periods and Mode Shapes
Mode Period, secs. Mode Shape ETABS Theoretical
Roof Level 1.165 1.165

1 0.4414 2nd Level 0.934 0.934
1st Level 0.519 0.519
Roof Level 0.934 0.934
2 0.1575 2nd Level -0.519 -0.519
1st Level -1.165 -1.165
3 0.1090 Roof Level 0.519 0.519

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Mode Period, secs. Mode Shape ETABS Theoretical
2nd Level -1.165 -1.165

1st Level 0.934 0.934
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 ETABS Theoretical
Displacement at
Roof 2.139 2.139
2nd 1.716 1.716
1st 0.955 0.955
Moment, Column C1, at Base 11,730 11,730
Computer Files
The input data file for this example is Example 02.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.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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)
Geometry, Properties and Loads

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
Poisson's ratio = 0.3
Typical story mass = 0.4 kip-sec2/in
Figure 3-1 Three-Story Plane Frame
Three-Story Plane Frame, Code-Specified Static Lateral Load Analysis 3-1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
For the UBC97 seismic load analysis, the code parameters associated with the analysis are as
follows:
UBC Seismic zone factor, Z = 0.40

UBC Soil Profile Type = SC
UBC Importance factor, I = 1.25
UBC Overstrength Factor = 8.5
UBC coefficient Ct = 0.035
UBC Seismic Source Type =B
Distance to Source = 15 km
For the ASCE 7-02 seismic load analysis, the code parameters associated with the analysis
are as follows:
Site Class =C
Response Accel, Ss =1
Response Accel, S1 = 0.4
Response Modification, R =8
Coefficient Ct = 0.035
Seismic Group =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 = 20 ft

UBC Basic wind speed = 100 mph
UBC Exposure type =B
UBC Importance factor, I =1
UBC Windward coefficient, Cq = 0.8
UBC Leeward coefficient, Cq = 0.5
Technical Features in ETABS Tested

 Section properties automatically recovered from AISC database
 Automatic generation of UBC 1997 seismic loads
 Automatic generation of ASCE 7-02 seismic loads
 Automatic generation of UBC 1997 wind loads

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
Level ETABS (kips) Theoretical (kips)
Roof 34.07 34.09
2nd 56.78 56.82
1st 68.13 68.19
Table 3-2 Comparison of Results for Story Shears - ASCE 7-02 Seismic

Roof 19.37 19.38
2nd 32.23 32.25
1st 38.61 38.64
Table 3-3 Comparison of Results for Story Shears - UBC 1997 Wind
Roof 3.30 3.30
2nd 9.49 9.49
1st 15.21 15.21
Computer File
ETABS installation.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Conclusion
The results comparison shows an exact match between the ETABS results and the theoretical
data.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 Cen-
tro 1940 N-S component seismic response spectrum, for 5 percent damping, in two orthogo-
nal directions. The columns are modeled to neglect shear and axial deformations to be con-
sistent 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 stiff-
nesses, 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).

Figure 4-1 Single-Story Three-Dimensional Frame
The structure is modeled as a single frame with four column lines and four bays. Kip-inch-
second units are used. Other parameters associated with the structure are as follows:
Columns on lines C1 and C2: 24" x 24"
Single-Story, Three-Dimensional Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis 4 -1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Columns on lines C3 and C4: 18" x 18"

All beams infinitely rigid and 36" deep

Story weight = 150 psf

 Three-dimensional frame analysis
 Automatic story mass calculation
Results Comparison
From the stiffness and mass matrices of the system, the three natural periods and mass nor-
malized mode shapes of the system can be obtained (Paz 1985). These are compared in Table
4-1 with ETABS results.

Mode Quantity ETABS Theoretical
1 Period, sec. 0.1389 0.1389
Mode Shape
X-translation -1.6244 -1.6244
Y-translation 0.0000 0.000
Z-rotation 0.0032 0.0032
2 Period, sec. 0.1254 0.1254
Mode Shape
X-translation 0.000 0.000
Z-rotation 0.000 0.000
3 Period,sec. 0.0702 0.070
Mode Shape
X-translation 0.4728 0.4728
Z-rotation 0.0111 0.0111

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Computer File
ETABS installation.
Conclusion
The results comparison shows an exact match between the ETABS results and the theoretical
data.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 (col-
umns 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 appropriate-
ly placing four identical planar frames. Each frame is modeled using three column lines. Kip-
inch-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
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.
Three-Story, Three-Dimensional Braced Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis 5 -1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
D2 D4
D1 D3
D2 D4
D1 D3
D2 D4
D1 D3
Figure 5-1 Three-Story, Three-Dimensional Braced Frame Building

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Table 5-1 Comparison of Results

Wilson and
Quantity ETABS Habibullah Peterson
Period, Mode 1 0.32686 0.32689 0.32689
Period, Mode 2 0.32061 0.32064 0.32064
Axial Force 279.39 279.47 279.48
Column C1, Story 1
Axial Force 194.44 194.51 194.50
Brace D1, Story 1
Axial Force 120.49 120.53 120.52
Brace D3, Story 1
Computer File
The input data file is Example 05.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS installa-
tion.
Conclusions
The results comparison reflects acceptable agreement between the ETABS results and ref-
erence data.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
Figure 6-1 Nine-Story, Ten-Bay Plane Frame
Nine-Story, Ten-Bay Plane Frame - Eigenvalue Analysis 6 -1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2

 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

Wilson and Bathe and
Quantity ETABS Habibullah Wilson
1 0.58964 0.58954 0.58954
2 5.53195 5.52696 5.52695
3 16.5962 16.5879 16.5878
Computer File
The input data filename for this example is Example 06.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.
Nine-Story, Ten-Bay Plane Frame - Eigenvalue Analysis 6 -2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 explic-
itly 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 ex-
ample 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 DY-
NAMIC/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 spec-
tra, 5 percent damping
 Lateral loads resulting from the El Centro 1940 N-S component acceleration time histo-
ry
Seven-Story, Plane Frame - Gravity and Lateral Loads Analysis 7 -1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Vertical Loading,
typical for all
levels
Global Reference Point

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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
Wilson and
Quantity ETABS Habibullah DYNAMIC/EASE2
Lateral Displacement 1.4508 1.4508 1.4508
at Roof
Axial Force 69.99 69.99 69.99
Column C1, at ground
Moment 2324.68 2324.68 2324.68
Column C1, at ground
Table 7-2 Comparison of Results for Periods of Vibration

Wilson and
Mode ETABS Habibullah DYNAMIC/EASE2
1 1.27321 1.27321 1.27321
2 0.43128 0.43128 0.43128
3 0.24205 0.24204 0.24204
4 0.16018 0.16018 0.16018
5 0.11899 0.11899 0.11899
6 0.09506 0.09506 0.09506
7 0.07952 0.07951 0.07951

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Table 7-3 Comparison of Results for Response Spectrum Analysis

Wilson and
ETABS Habibullah DYNAMIC/EASE2
CQC CQC SRSS
Quantity Combination Combination Combination
Lateral Displacement 5.4314 5.4314 5.4378
at Roof
Axial Force 261.52 261.50 261.76
Column C1 at ground
Moment 9916.12 9916.11 9868.25

Column C1 at ground
Table 7-4 Comparison of Results for Time History Analysis

Wilson and
Quantity ETABS Habibullah
Maximum Roof Displacement 5.49 5.48
Maximum Base Shear 285 284
Maximum Axial Force, Column C1 at ground 263 258
Maximum Moment, Column C1 at ground 9104 8740
Computer Files
The input data file is Example 07.EDB. The input history is ELCN-THU. Time history re-
sults are obtained for the first eight seconds of the excitation. This is consistent with DY-
NAMIC/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.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 as-
signed in the ETABS model.

The geometry of the structure is shown in Figure 8-1.
B5 B6
B8 B10 B12
13'
B3 B4
B7
B9 B11
B1 B2 13'
C7 C8 C9
C4 C5 C6
25'
Z
Y
C1 C2 C3
X 25'
35' 35'
GLOBAL
STORY 1 CENTER OF MASS AT (38,27,13)
AND FRAME
STORY 2 CENTER OF MASS AT (38,27,26)
REFERENCE POINT
TYPICAL STORY MASS = 6.212 kip-sec 2 /ft
Figure 8-1 Two-Story Three-Dimensional Frame
Two-Story, Three-Dimensional Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis 8-1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
A response spectrum with a constant value of 0.4g is used. Other parameters associated
with the structure are as follows:
Columns Beams
Axial area 4 ft2 5 ft2
Minor moment of inertia 1.25 ft4 1.67 ft4
Major moment of inertia 1.25 ft4 2.61 ft4
Modulus of elasticity 350000 ksf 500000 ksf

 User-specified section properties
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 Pe-
terson (Reference 2) is shown in Table 8-1.

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
0.0201 0.0201 0.0201
Center of mass, 2nd Story
Computer File
tion.
Conclusion
The results comparison shows acceptable agreement between ETABS and the references.
Two-Story, Three-Dimensional Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis 8-2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 sub-
jected to a seismic response spectrum along two horizontal axes that are at a 30-degree an-
gle 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.
Figure 9-1 Two-Story Three-Dimensional Unsymmetrical Building Frame
Two-Story, 3D Unsymmetrical Building Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis 9 -1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Results Comparison
The structure is also analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992). Key ETABS results are
compared in Table 9-1.

Wilson and
Quantity ETABS 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
X- Displacement
Center of Mass at 2nd Story for:
Seismic at 30° to X 0.1062 0.1062
Seismic at 120° to X 0.0617 0.0617
Computer File
tion.
Conclusions
The results comparison shows exact agreement between ETABS and the reference material.
Two-Story, 3D Unsymmetrical Building Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis 9 -2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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% damp-
ing in the fundamental mode. In the second model, damping is increased to 25%. The manu-
facturer 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
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
1 2
D1 D2
D1 D2
D1 D2
Figure 10-1 Planar Frame with ADAS Elements

 Panel zones
 Point assignments
 Nonlinear time history analysis
 Ritz vectors
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 25% Damping

Level ETABS DRAIN-2DX ETABS DRAIN-2DX
Comparison of Maximum Story Deflections
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
Comparison of Maximum Link Shear Force
3rd 7.29 7.31 17.75 17.40
2nd 13.97 13.92 36.70 36.20
1st 17.98 18.00 47.79 47.10
Comparison of Maximum Brace Axial Force
3rd 5.16 5.17 12.55 12.30
2nd 9.88 9.84 25.95 25.60
1st 12.71 12.70 33.79 33.28
Computer Files
The input data files for this example are Example 10A.EDB (5% damping) and Example
10B.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 DRAIN-
2DX.
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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, damp-
ing 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 = CVα.
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 prop-
erties 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
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Figure 11-1 Planar Frame with Damper Elements

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 α = 1 are compared in Table 11-1 with results from the nonlinear analy-
sis program DRAIN-2DX (Prakash, et al. 1993) for both 5% and 25% damping cases.
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Table 11-1 Results Comparison
5% Damping 25% Damping

Level ETABS DRAIN-2DX ETABS DRAIN-2DX
Comparison of Maximum Story Deflections

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
Comparison of Maximum Link Shear Force
3rd 6.16 5.98 14.75 14.75
2nd 10.79 10.80 32.82 32.84
1st 15.15 15.02 44.90 44.97
Comparison of Maximum Brace Axial Force
3rd 4.36 4.23 10.43 10.43
2nd 7.63 7.63 23.21 23.22
1st 10.71 10.62 31.75 31.80
Computer File
The input data files for this example are Example 11A.EDB (5% damping) and Example
11B.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.
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 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. Col-
umn 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 physi-
cally 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.

 Use of uniaxial gap elements
 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.
Pounding of Two Planar Frames, Nonlinear Time History Analysis 12 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Figure 12-1 Planar Frame with Gap Elements

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Quantity ETABS SAP2000
Maximum Lateral Displacement at Roof 5.5521 5.5521
Maximum Axial Force, Column C1 at ground 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 evi-
dent 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.
Figure 12-2 Variations of Displacement of Column Lines 3 and 4

and Link Force at Story 4
Computer Files
The input data for this example is Example 12.EDB. The time history file is ELCN-THU.
Both of the files are provided as part of the ETABS installation.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Conclusions
The results comparison shows essentially exact agreement between ETABS and SAP2000.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 us-
ing 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.

 Use of area (floor) objects
 Use of biaxial hysteretic elements
 Nonlinear time history analysis using ritz vectors
Base-Isolated, Two-Story, 3D Frame - Nonlinear Time History Analysis 13 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Figure 13-1 Base-Isolated Three-Dimensional Frame
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.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Maximum Uy Displacement, Column C9 at 2nd Floor 3.4735 3.4736
Maximum Axial Force, Column C1 at base 13.56 13.55
A typical output produced by the program is shown in Figure 13-2. It shows the load-
deformation relationship in the major direction for a typical isolator member.
Figure 13-2 Load Deformation Diagram

Computer Files
The input data file for this example is Example 13.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.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
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 direc-
tions 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 1E3

Stiffness in directions 2 and 3 1E2
Coefficient of friction at fast speed .04
Coefficient of friction at slow speed .03
Parameter determining the variation
of the coefficient of friction with velocity 20
Radius of contact surface in directions 2 and 3 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.
Friction Pendulum Base-Isolated 3D Frame - Nonlinear Time History Analysis 14 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
Figure 14-1 Base-Isolated Three-Dimensional Frame

 Use of area (floor) objects
 Use of biaxial friction pendulum elements
 Nonlinear time history analysis using ritz vectors

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
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 com-
parison of key ETABS results with SAP2000 is presented in Table 14-1.
Table 14-1 Comparison of Result for Time History Analysis
Maximum Uy Displacement, Column C9 at 2nd Floor 4.2474 4.2069
Maximum Axial Force, Column C1 at base 37.13 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.
Figure 14-2 Variation of Displacement

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.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
Conclusion
The results comparison shows acceptable agreement between ETABS and SAP2000.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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. Kip-
inch-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.
Wall Area Object Behavior - Static Lateral Loads Analysis 15 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Figure 15-1 Planar Shear Wall, Example 15a
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.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Figure 15-2 Wall Supported on Columns, Example 15b

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Wall-Spandrel System, Example 15c

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.
Figure 15-3 Wall-Spandrel System, Example 15c

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Shaped Wall Section, Example 15d

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
Y 100k
REFERENCE
POINT X
100k
C3 C4 80”
C2 C5
40”
C1 C6
80” 120” 80”
PLAN
Figure 15-4 C-Shaped Wall Section, Example 15d

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Wall with Edges Thickened, Example 15e

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”
Y 8” 18”
X
Global
Reference
Point
Figure 15-5 Wall with Thickened Edges, Example 15e

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
E-Shaped Wall Section, Example 15f

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
1
120”
BASELINE
ELEVATION
GLOBAL
REFERENCE Y 100k
POINT
C1 100k C3
C2 X
120”
C4 C5 C6
120” 120”
PLAN
Figure 15-6 E-Shaped Wall Section, Example 15f

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2

 Use of area objects
 Two-dimensional and three-dimensional shear wall systems
 Static lateral loads analysis
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 mesh-
es 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 dia-
phragms 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.
Figure 15-7 SAP2000 Mesh, Example 15a

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Figure 15-8 SAP2000 Mesh, Example 15b
Figure 15-9 SAP2000 Mesh, Example 15c

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Figure 15-10 SAP2000 Mesh, Example 15d
Figure 15-11 SAP2000 Mesh, Example 15e

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Figure 15-12 SAP2000 Mesh, Example 15f
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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Table 15-3 Results Comparison for Top Displacements (inches)

Example 15c (1-4)
Number of Sto-
ries Beam Length (inches) ETABS SAP2000
60 0.0844 0.0869
6
240 0.1456 0.1505
60 0.0188 0.0200
3
240 0.0313 0.0332
Table 15-4 Results Comparison for Top Displacements (Inches) at Load

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 SAP2000
6 0.2822 0.2899
3 0.0464 0.0480
Table 15-6 Results Comparison for Displacements at Load Application,

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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Computer Files
The input data files for the planar shear walls are included as files Example 15A1.EDB
through Example 15A9.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 Example 15B.EDB.
The input data files for the wall-spandrel system are Example C1.EDB through Example
C4.EDB.
The input data files for the shaped wall section are included as files Example 15D1.EDB
and Example 15D2.EDB.
The input data for the wall with thickened edges are included as files Example 15E1.EDB
and Example 15E2.EDB.
The input data for the E-shaped wall section are included as files Example 15F1.EDB and
Example 15F2.EDB.
Conclusion
The results comparison show acceptable agreement between ETABS and SAP2000. In
general, the comparisons become better as the number of stories increases.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AISC 360-05 Example 001
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 Loading Geometry

W18X50 w = 0.45 klf (D) Span, L = 35 ft
E = 29000 ksi w = 0.75 klf (L)
Fy = 50 ksi
TECHNICAL FEATURES TESTED

 Section Compactness Check (Bending)
 Member Bending Capacities
 Unsupported length factors
AISC 360-05 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 360-05).
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Compactness Compact Compact 0.00%
Cb ( Lb =5ft) 1.004 1.002 0.20%
φb M n ( Lb =5ft) (k-ft) 378.750 378.750 0.00%
Cb ( Lb =11.67ft) 1.015 1.014 0.10%
φb M n ( Lb =11.67ft) (k-ft) 307.124 306.657 0.15%
Cb ( Lb =35ft) 1.138 1.136 0.18%
φb M n ( Lb =35ft) (k-ft) 94.377 94.218 0.17%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC 360-05 EX001
CONCLUSION
The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
I y Cw 40.1 • 3045.644
=rts = = 1.98 in
S33 88.889
Rm = 1.0 for doubly-symmetric sections

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
8
∙
= 1.74 352/8 = 266.4375 k-ft
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
bf 7.50
λ= = = 6.579
2t f 2 • 0.57

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E 29000
λ p = 0.38 = 0.38 = 9.152
Fy 50
λ < λ p , No localized flange buckling

Flange is Compact.
Localized Buckling for Web:

h 16.86
λ
= = = 47.49
tw 0.355
E 29000
λ p = 3.76 = 3.76 = 90.553
Fy 50
λ < λ p , No localized web buckling

Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.
Section Bending Capacity:

M p =Fy Z 33 =50 • 101 =5050 k − in
Lateral-Torsional Buckling Parameters:

Critical Lengths:
E 29000
Lp =
1.76 ry =
1.76 • 1.652 =
70.022 in =
5.835 ft
Fy 50
2
E Jc  0.7 Fy S33 ho 
=Lr 1.95rts 1 + 1 + 6.76  
0.7 Fy S33 ho  E Jc 
29000 1.240 • 1.0  0.7 • 50 88.9 • 17.43 

2
Lr = 1.95 • 1.98 1 + 1 + 6.76  

0.7 • 50 88.9 • 17.43  29000 1.240 • 1.0 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Lr = 16.966 ft
Non-Uniform Moment Magnification Factor:

For the lateral-torsional buckling limit state, the non-uniform moment magnification factor is
calculated using the following equation:
12.5M max
Cb = Rm ≤ 3.0 Eqn. 1
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
Where MA = first quarter-span moment, MB = mid-span moment, MC = second quarter-span
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:
2
1L 
M A = MC = 1−  b 
4 L 
Member Bending Capacity for Lb = 5 ft:

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1 5 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   = 0.995
4 L  4  35 
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.995 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.995 )
Cb = 1.002
Lb < L p , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:
=
M n =
M p 5050 k − in
ϕb M=
n 0.9 • 5050 /12
ϕb M n 378.75 k − ft
=

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Member Bending Capacity for Lb = 11.667 ft:

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1  11.667 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   =
0.972
4 L  4  35 
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 )
Cb = 1.014
L p < Lb < Lr , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:
  Lb − L p 
M n = C b  M p − (M p − 0.7 Fy S 33 )  ≤ M p
 − 
 L
 r L p 
  11.667 − 5.835  
=M n 1.014 5050 − ( 5050 − 0.7 • 50 • 88.889 )  =   4088.733 k − in
  16.966 − 5.835  
ϕb M=
n 0.9 • 4088.733 /12
ϕb M n 306.657 k − ft
=

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1  35 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   = 0.750 .
4 L  4  35 
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb = (1.00 )
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 )
Cb = 1.136
Lb > Lr , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
2
Cbπ 2 E Jc  Lb 
Fcr = 2
1 + 0.078  
 Lb  S 33 ho  rts 
 
 rts 
1.136 • π 2 • 29000 1.24 • 1  420 

2
Fcr = 1 + 0.078   =
14.133 ksi
 420 
2
88.889 • 17.4  1.983 
 
 1.983 
M n = Fcr S 33 ≤ M p
M n= 14.133 • 88.9= 1256.245 k − in
ϕb M=
n 0.9 • 1256.245 /12
ϕb M n 94.218 k − ft
=

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.

 Section compactness check (compression)
 Warping constant calculation, Cw
 Member compression capacity with slenderness reduction

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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).
Percent
Compactness Slender Slender 0.00%
φcPn (kips) 506.1 506.1 0.00 %
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 in 3
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
I x = 2(8.0)(8.0) 2 + + = 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
Loadings:
Pu = 1.2(70.0) + 1.6(210) = 420 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Check for slender elements using Specification Section E7

b 4.0
λ=
= = 4.0
t 1.0
E 29000
=λ p 0.38
= 0.38 = 9.152
Fy 50
Flange is Compact.

h 15.0
=λ= = 60.0 ,
t 0.250
E 29000
=λr 1.49
= 1.49 = 35.9
Fy 50
λ > λr , Localized web buckling
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 1.0(15 • 12 )
= = 86.6
ry 2.08
π 2E π 2 • 29000
Fe = = = 38.18 ksi
 KL 
2
(86.6)2
 
 r 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Elastic Critical Torsional Buckling Stress

Note: Torsional buckling will not govern if KLy > KLz, however, the check is included
here to illustrate the calculation.
 π 2 EC w  1
Fe =  + GJ 
 (K z L )  Ix + Iy
2
 π 2 • 29000 • 5462.4  1
=Fe  + 11200 • 5.41 = 91.8 ksi > 38.18 ksi
(180 )  1100 + 85.4
2

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
E 29000 KLy
4.71 =4.71 =113 > =86.6
QFy 1.0 ( 50 ) ry
So
 QFy
  1.0( 50 )

f = Fcr = Q 0.658 Fe  Fy = 1.0 0.658 38.2  • 50 = 28.9 ksi
   
E 0.34 E 
be = 1.92t 1 −  ≤ b, where b = h
f ( 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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
therefore compute Aeff with reduced effective web width.

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
=
Qa= = 0.968
A 19.75
=Q Q=
s Qa (1.00 )( 0.968
= ) 0.968
Critical Buckling Stress
Determine whether Specification Equation E7-2 or E7-3 applies
E 29000 KLy
4.71 = 4.71 = 115.4 > = 86.6
QFy 0.966 ( 50 ) ry
Therefore, Specification Equation E7-2 applies.
E KL
When 4.71 ≥
QFy r
 QFy
  1.0( 50 )

=Fcr Q 0.658
= Fe
 Fy 0.966 0.658
= 38.18
 • 50 28.47 ksi
   
Nominal Compressive Strength
Pn =Fcr Ag =28.5 • 19.75 =562.3kips

φc =0.90
φc P=
n Fcr Ag= 0.90 ( 562.3=) 506.1kips > 420 kips
φc Pn =
506.1kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Lb = 5 ft, 11.667 ft and 35 ft.

W18X50 w = 0.45 klf (D) Span, L = 35 ft
E = 29000 ksi w = 0.75 klf (L)
Fy = 50 ksi

 Section compactness check (bending)
 Member bending capacities

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Cb ( Lb =5ft) 1.004 1.002 0.20%
φb M n ( Lb =5ft) (k-ft) 378.750 378.750 0.00%
Cb ( Lb =11.67ft) 1.015 1.014 0.10%
φb M n ( Lb =11.67ft) (k-ft) 307.124 306.657 0.15%
Cb ( Lb =35ft) 1.138 1.136 0.18%
φb M n ( Lb =35ft) (k-ft) 94.377 94.218 0.17%
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Section: W18x50
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
I y Cw 40.1 • 3045.644
=rts = = 1.98in
S33 88.889

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
8
∙
= 1.74 352/8 = 266.4375 k-ft
bf 7.50
λ= = = 6.579
2t f 2 • 0.57

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E 29000
λ p = 0.38 = 0.38 = 9.152
Fy 50

Flange is Compact.

h 16.86
λ
= = = 47.49
tw 0.355
E 29000
λ p = 3.76 = 3.76 = 90.553
Fy 50

Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.

M p =Fy Z 33 =50 • 101 =5050 k-in

Critical Lengths:
E 29000
Lp =
1.76 ry =
1.76 • 1.652 =
70.022 in =
5.835ft
Fy 50
2
E Jc  0.7 Fy S33 ho 
=Lr 1.95rts 1 + 1 + 6.76  
0.7 Fy S33 ho  E Jc 
29000 1.240 • 1.0  0.7 • 50 88.9 • 17.43 

2
Lr = 1.95 • 1.98 1 + 1 + 6.76  

0.7 • 50 88.9 • 17.43  29000 1.240 • 1.0 
Lr = 16.966 ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

For the lateral-torsional buckling limit state, the non-uniform moment magnification
factor is calculated using the following equation:
12.5M max
Cb = Rm ≤ 3.0 Eqn. 1
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
where MA = first quarter-span moment, MB = mid-span moment, MC = second quarter-
span 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:
2
1L 
M A = MC = 1−  b 
4 L 
M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1 5 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   = 0.995
4 L  4  35 
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.995 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.995 )
Cb = 1.002
=
M n =
M p 5050 k-in
φb M n =0.9 • 5050 /12
φb M n =
378.75 k-ft

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1  11.667 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   =
0.972
4 L  4  35 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 )
Cb = 1.014
  Lb − L p 
M n = C b  M p − (M p − 0.7 Fy S 33 )  ≤Mp
  L − L 
 r p 
  11.667 − 5.835  
=M n 1.014 5050 − ( 5050 − 0.7 • 50 • 88.889 )  =   4088.733 k-in
  16.966 − 5.835  
φb M n =
0.9 • 4088.733 /12
φb M n =
306.657 k-ft

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1  35 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   = 0.750 .
4 L  4  35 
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb = (1.00 )
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 )
Cb = 1.136

2
Fcr = 2
1 + 0.078  
 Lb  S 33 ho  rts 
 
 rts 
1.136 • π2 • 29000 1.24 • 1  420 

2
Fcr = 1 + 0.078   =
14.133ksi
 420 
2
88.889 • 17.4  1.983 
 
 1.983 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
M n= 14.133 • 88.9= 1256.245 k-in
φb M n =
0.9 •1256.245 /12
φb M n =
94.218 k-ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION


PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
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).
Percent
φcPn (kips) 506.1 506.1 0.00 %
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

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
ry = = = 2.08 in.
A 19.8
I x = ∑ Ad 2 + ∑ I x
(0.250)(15.0)3 2(8.0)(1.0)3
I x = 2(8.0)(8.0) 2 + + = 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
bt 3
2(8.0)(1.0) 3 + (15.0)(0.250) 3
J =∑ = = 5.41 in 4
3 3
Member:
L = 15 ft
Loadings:
Pu = 1.2(70.0) + 1.6(210) = 420 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

b 4.0
λ=
= = 4.0
t 1.0
E 29000
=λ p 0.38
= 0.38 = 9.152
Fy 50
Flange is Compact.

h 15.0
=λ= = 60.0 ,
t 0.250
E 29000
=λr 1.49
= 1.49 = 35.9
Fy 50
Web is Slender.
Section is Slender

inspection.
KL y 1.0(15 • 12 )
= = 86.6
ry 2.08
π2 E π2 • 29000
=Fe = = 38.18 ksi
(86.6 )
2 2
 KL 
 
 r 


PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 π2 EC  1
=Fe  w
+ GJ 
 ( K z L )  I x + I y
2
 π2 • 29000 • 5462.4  1
=Fe  + 11200 • 5.41 = 91.8 ksi > 38.18 ksi
(180 )  1100 + 85.4
2

Fe = 38.18 ksi

Qs = 1.0

For equation E7-17, take f as Fcr with Q = 1.0
E 29000 KLy
4.71 =4.71 =113 > =86.6
QFy 1.0 ( 50 ) ry
So
 QFy
  1.0( 50 )

f = Fcr = Q 0.658  Fy = 1.0 0.658 38.2  • 50 = 28.9 ksi
Fe
   
 0.34 E 
E
be = 1.92t 1 −  ≤ b, where b = h
 (b t ) f 
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
Aeff =betw + 2b f t f =(12.5)( 0.250 ) + 2 (8.0 )(1.0 ) =19.1 in 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Aeff 19.1
=
Qa= = 0.968
A 19.75
=Q Q=
s Qa (1.00 )( 0.968
= ) 0.968
E 29000 KLy
4.71 = 4.71 = 115.4 > = 86.6
QFy 0.966 ( 50 ) ry
E KL
When 4.71 ≥
QFy r
 QFy
  1.0( 50 )

=Fcr Q 0.658
= Fe
 Fy 0.966 0.658
= 38.18
 • 50 28.47 ksi
   
Pn =Fcr Ag =28.5 • 19.75 =562.3kips

φc =0.90
φc P=
n Fcr Ag= 0.90 ( 562.3=) 506.1kips > 420 kips
φc Pn =
506.1kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AISC 360-16 SFD Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Lb = 5 ft, 11.667 ft and 35 ft.

W18X50 w = 0.45 klf (D) Span, L = 35 ft
E = 29000 ksi w = 0.75 klf (L)
Fy = 50 ksi

➢ Section compactness check (bending)
➢ Member bending capacities
➢ Unsupported length factors
AISC 360-16 SFD Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Cb ( Lb =5ft) 1.004 1.002 0.20%
b M n ( Lb =5ft) (k-ft) 378.750 378.750 0.00%
Cb ( Lb =11.67ft) 1.015 1.014 0.10%
b M n ( Lb =11.67ft) (k-ft) 307.108 306.657 0.15%
Cb ( Lb =35ft) 1.138 1.136 0.18%
b M n ( Lb =35ft) (k-ft) 94.361 94.218 0.15%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC 360-16 SFD EX001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Section: W18x50
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

I y Cw 40.1 • 3045.644
rts    1.98in
S33 88.889
Rm  1.0 for doubly-symmetric sections

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
8
∙
= 1.74 352/8 = 266.4375 k-ft
bf 7.50
   6.579
2t f 2 • 0.57

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E 29000
 p  0.38  0.38  9.152
Fy 50
   p , No localized flange buckling

Flange is Compact.

h 16.86
   47.49
tw 0.355
E 29000
 p  3.76  3.76  90.553
Fy 50
   p , No localized web buckling

Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.

M p  Fy Z33  50 •101  5050 k-in

Critical Lengths:
E 29000
Lp  1.76 ry  1.76 • 1.652  70.022 in  5.835ft
Fy 50
2
E Jc  0.7 Fy S33ho 
Lr  1.95rts 1  1  6.76  
0.7 Fy S33ho  E Jc 
29000 1.240 • 1.0  0.7 • 50 88.9 • 17.43 

2
Lr  1.95 • 1.98 1  1  6.76  

0.7 • 50 88.9 •17.43  29000 1.240 • 1.0 
Lr  16.966ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

12.5M max
Cb  Rm  3.0 Eqn. 1
2.5M max  3M A  4M B  3M C
span moment.
2
1 L 
M A  MC  1  b 
4 L 
M max  M B  1.00
2 2
1 L  1 5 
M A  M C  1   b   1     0.995
4 L  4  35 
12.5 1.00 
Cb 
2.5 1.00   3  0.995   4 1.00   3  0.995 
Cb  1.002
Lb  L p , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:
M n  M p  5050 k-in
b M n  0.9 • 5050 /12
b M n  378.75 k-ft

M max  M B  1.00
2 2
1 L  1  11.667 
M A  MC  1  b   1    0.972
4 L  4  35 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
12.5 1.00 
Cb 
2.5 1.00   3  0.972   4 1.00   3  0.972 
Cb  1.014
L p  Lb  Lr , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:
  Lb  L p 
M n  Cb M p  M p  0.7 Fy S 33    Mp
  L  L 
 r p 
  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 max  M B  1.00
2 2
1 L  1  35 
M A  M C  1   b   1     0.750 .
4 L  4  35 
12.5 1.00 
Cb  1.00 
2.5 1.00   3  0.750   4 1.00   3  0.750 
Cb  1.136
Lb  Lr , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:

2
Cb 2 E Jc  Lb 
Fcr  2
1  0.078  
 Lb  S 33ho  rts 
 
r 
 ts 
1.136 • 2 • 29000 1.24 • 1  420 

2
Fcr  1  0.078    14.133ksi

 420 
2
88.889 • 17.4  1.983 
 
 1.983 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
M n  Fcr S 33  M p
M n  14.133 • 88.9  1256.245 k-in

b M n  0.9•1256.245 /12
b M n  94.218 k-ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AISC 360-16 SFD Example 002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

➢ Section compactness check (compression)
➢ Warping constant calculation, Cw
➢ Member compression capacity with slenderness reduction

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated.
Percent
cPn (kips) 497.9 497.9 0.00 %
COMPUTER FILE: AISC 360-16 SFD EX002
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

Ag = 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
ry    2.08 in.
A 19.8
I x   Ad 2   I x
(0.250)(15.0)3 2(8.0)(1.0)3
I x  2(8.0)(8.0)2    1095.65 in4
12 12
t1  t2 11
d'd   17   16 in
2 2
Iy • d '2 (85.35)(16.0)2
Cw    5462.583 in4
4 4
bt 3
2(8.0)(1.0) 3  (15.0)(0.250) 3
J    5.41 in 4
3 3
Member:
L = 15 ft
Loadings:
Pu = 1.2(70.0) + 1.6(210) = 420 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

b 4.0
   4.0
t 1.0
E 29000
 p  0.38  0.38  9.152
Fy 50
   p , No localized flange buckling
Flange is Compact.

h 15.0
   60.0 ,
t 0.250
E 29000
r  1.49  1.49  35.9
Fy 50
  r , Localized web buckling
Web is Slender.
Section is Slender

inspection.
KL y 1.015 • 12
  86.6
ry 2.08
2 E 2 • 29000
Fe   = 38.18 ksi
86.6 
2 2
 KL 
 
 r 


PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 2 EC  1
Fe   w
 GJ 
  K z L   I x  I y
2
 2 • 29000 • 5462.4  1
Fe    11200 • 5.41 = 91.97 ksi > 38.18 ksi
180   1100  85.4
2

Fe = 38.18 ksi
K y Ly 1.0 180 E 29000

Since   86.6  4.71  4.71  113.4
ry 2.08 Fy 50
 Fy
  50

Fcr   0.658 Fe  Fy   0.65838.18  • 50  28.9ksi
   
 
Since the web is considered a stiffened element:

c1  0.18
1  1  4 c1 1  1  4 0.18
c2    1.31
2 c1 2 0.18
  
2 2
 35.9 
Fel   c2 r  Fy  1.31  Fy  30.59ksi
   60 
Fy 50
Since   60  r  35.9  47.20
Fcr 28.9
 F  F
be  b 1  c1 el  el  b, where b  h
 Fcr  Fcr
 30.59  30.59
be  15 1  0.18   12.6  15.0, where b  h
 28.9  28.9
be  12.6in  15.0in

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Aeff  Ag  2betw  19.75  2 12.6 0.25  19.1 in 2
Pn  Fcr Ae  28.9 •19.1  553.3kips

c  0.90
c Pn  Fcr Ag  0.90  553.3  497.9 kips > 420 kips
c Pn  497.9 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AISC ASD-89 Example 001
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.

W6X12, M10X9, w = 1.0 klf Span, L = 12.65 ft
W8X10
E = 29000 ksi

 Member bending capacity
AISC ASD-89 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are taken from Allowable Stress Design Manual of Steel
Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Page 2-6.
Percent
Compactness Non-Compact Non-Compact 0.00%
Design Bending Stress, fb 30.74 30.74 0.00%

(ksi)
Allowable Bending Stress, 32.70 32.70 0.00 %

Fb (ksi)
COMPUTER FILE: AISC ASD-89 EX001
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact match with the independent results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
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
h = h − 2t f = 7.89 − 2 • 0.205 = 7.48 in
Member:
L = 12.65 ft
lb = 3 ft
Loadings:
w = 1.0 k/ft
M=
wL2
8
∙
= 1.0 12.652/8 = 20.0 k-ft
Design Bending Stress

f=
b M / S33= 20 • 12 / 7.8074
fb = 30.74 ksi
bf 3.94
λ
= = = 9.610
2t f 2 • 0.205
65 65
λp
= = = 9.192
Fy 50
95 95
λr = = = 13.435
Fy 50

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
λ > λ p , Localized flange buckling is present.

λ < λr ,
Flange is Non-Compact.

d 7.89
λ
= = = 46.412
tw 0.17
P f
No axial force is present, so f a= = 0 and a = 0 ≤ 0.16,so
A Fy
640  f  640  0 
λ=
p 1 − 3.74 a = 1 − 3.74 • =  90.510
Fy  F y  50  50 

Web is Compact.
Section is Non-Compact.
Section Bending Capacity

Allowable Bending Stress
Since section is Non-Compact
 bf 
=
Fb 33  0.79 − 0.002 Fy  Fy
 2t f 
 
Fb 33 = ( 0.79 − 0.002 • 9.61• )

50 50
Fb 33 = 32.70 ksi

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Critical Length, lc:
 76b f 20,000 A f 
l c = min  , 
 Fy dFy 
 76 • 3.94 20, 000 • 3.94 • 0.205 

lc = min  , 
 50 7.89 • 50 
lc = min {42.347, 40.948}
lc = 40.948 in
l22 =lb =3 • 12 =36 in
l 22 < l c , section capacity is as follows:
Fb 33 = 32.70 ksi

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AISC ASD-89 Example 002
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.

 Member compression capacity

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
Percent
Design Axial Stress, fa (ksi) 15.86 15.86 0.00%

Allowable Axial Stress, 16.47 16.47 0.00%
Fa (ksi)
COMPUTER FILE: AISC ASD-89 EX002
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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:
P 560
f=
a =
A 35.3
f a = 15.86 ksi
Compactness:
bf 12.32
λ
= = = 5.575
2t f 2 • 1.105
65 65
λp
= = = 10.83
Fy 36

Flange is Compact.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

f a 15.86
= = 0.44
Fy 36
d 13.12
λ
= = = 18.48
tw 0.71
fa
Since = 0.44 > 0.16
Fy
257 257
λp
= = = 42.83
Fy 36

Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.
Member Compression Capacity

KL x 2.13 • (15 • 12 )
= = 69.638
rx 5.5056
2π2 E 2π2 • 29000

=Cc = = 126.099
Fy 36
KL x
rx 69.638
= = 0.552
Cc 126.099
KL x
< Cc
rx

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 1  KL x rx 
2

1.0 −    Fy
 2  Cc  
Fa = 3
5 3  KL x rx  1  KL x rx 
+   −  
3 8  C c  8  Cc 
 2
1.0 − (0.552 )  • 36
1
Fa =  
2
+ (0.552 ) − (0.552 )
5 3 1 3
3 8 8
Fa = 16.47 ksi

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AISC LRFD-93 Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

W18X40 wu = 1.6 klf Span, L = 35 ft
E = 29000 ksi
Fy = 50 ksi

AISC LRFD-93 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
Percent
Cb ( Lb =4.375ft) 1.003 1.002 0.10%
φb M n ( Lb =4.375 ft) (k-ft) 294.000 294.000 0.00%
Cb ( Lb =11.67 ft) 1.015 1.014 0.10%
φb M n ( Lb = 11.67ft) (k-ft) 213.0319 212.703 0.15%
Cb ( Lb = 35ft) 1.138 1.136 0.18%
φb M n ( Lb = 35ft) (k-ft) 50.6845 50.599 0.17%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC LRFD-93 EX001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Fr = 10 ksi (for rolled shapes)
FL = Fy − Fr = 50 − 10 = 40 ksi
Section: W18x40
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
φb = 0.9
Loadings:
wu = 1.6 k/ft
Mu =
wu L2
8
∙
= 1.6 352/8 = 245.0 k-ft
bf 6.02
λ
= = = 5.733
2t f 2 • 0.525
65 65
λp
= = = 9.192
Fy 50

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Flange is Compact.

hc 16.85
λ
= = = 53.492
tw 0.315
640 640
λp
= = = 90.510
Fy 50

Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.

Mp =Fy Z 33 =50 • 78.4 =3920 k-in

Critical Lengths:
π EGJA π 29000 • 11153.85 • 0.81 • 11.8
=X1 = = 1806 ksi
S33 2 68.3799 2
2 2
Cw  S33  1441.528  68.3799 
=X 2 4=   4  =  0.0173in 4
I 22  GJ  19.1  11153.85 • 0.81 
300 r22 300 • 1.2723
=Lp = = 53.979in
= 4.498ft
Fy 50
X1
=
Lr r22 1 + 1 + X 2 FL 2
FL
1.27 • 1810
=
Lr 1 + 1 + 0.0172 • 40
= 2
= 12.069 ft
144.8in
40

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

12.5M max
Cb = Rm ≤ 3.0 Eqn. 1
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
span moment.
2
1L 
M A = MC = 1−  b 
4 L 

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1  4.375 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   =
0.996
4 L  4  35 
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.996 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.996 )
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

φb M n =0.9 • 3920 /12
φb M n =
294.0 k-ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1  11.667 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   =
0.972
4 L  4  35 
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 )
Cb = 1.014
  Lb − Lp 
M= C  M − ( M − F S )
L 33    ≤ M p
 Lr − L p
n b p p
  
  11.667 − 4.486  
M n 1.01 3920 − ( 3920 − 40 • 68.4 ) 
= =   2836.042 k-in
  12.06 − 4.486  
φb M n =0.9 • 2836.042 /12
φb M n =
212.7031 k-ft

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1  35 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   = 0.750 .
4 L  4  35 
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb = (1.00 )
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 )
Cb = 1.136

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
2
Cb π  πE 
=M cr EI 22GJ +   I 22CW
Lb  Lb 
1.136 • π  π • 29000 
2
=M cr 29000 • 19.1 • 11153.85 • 0.81 +   19.1 • 1441.528

35 • 12  35 • 12 
=
M n =
M cr 674.655 k-in
φb M n =0.9 • 674.655 /12
φb M n =
50.599 k-ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AISC LRFD-93 Example 002
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.

W14X176 Pu = 1,400 kips H = 14.0 ft
E = 29000 ksi Mux = 200 kip-ft
Fy = 50 ksi Muy = 70 kip-ft

 Demand/capacity ratio, D/C

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Example 6.2 in the 3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, pages 6-6 to
6-8.
Percent
φc Pn (kips) 1937.84 1937.84 0.00%
φb M nx (k-ft) 1200 1200 0.00%
φb M ny (k-ft) 600.478 600.478 0.00%
D/C 0.974 0.974 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC LRFD-93 EX002
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Fy = 50 ksi, E = 29,000 ksi
Section: W14x176
A = 51.8 in2,
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
φc =0.85
φb =0.9
Loadings:
Pu = 1400 kips
Mux = 200 k-ft
Muy = 70 k-ft
= λ
( b=
f / 2) (15.7 / 2)
= 5.99
tf 1.31
65 65
λ=
p = = 9.19
Fy 50
Flange is Compact.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

h 12.58
λ= c= = 15.16
tw 0.83
φb Py =φb Ag Fy =0.9 • 51.8 • 50 =
2331 kips
Pu 1400
= = 0.601
φb Py 2331
Pu
Since = 0.601 > 0.125
φb Py
191  P  253
=λp  2.33 − u  ≥
Fy  φb Py  Fy
191 253
=
λp ( 2.33 − 0.601
= ) 46.714 ≥ = 35.780
50 50
Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.
For braced frames, K = 1.0 and KxLx = KyLy = 14.0 ft, From AISC Table 4-2,
φc Pn =
1940 kips
Or by hand,
K y L Fy 1.0 • 14 • 12 50
=λc = = 0.552
ry π E 4.022 • π 29000
Since λ c < 1.5,
(
Fy 0.658λc
Fcr =
2
)=
50 • 0.658 0.5522
=
44.012 ksi
φc Pn =
φc Fcr Ag =
0.85 • 44.012 • 51.8
φc Pn =
1937.84 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
From LRFD Specification Section H1.2,
Pu 1400
= = 0.722 > 0.2
φc Pn 1937.84
Therefore, LRFD Specification Equation H1-1a governs.

50 • 310
=
M px F=
yZx = 1333.333 k-ft
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
50 • 160.1274
=M py = 667.198 k-ft
12
Member Bending Capacity
From LRFD Specification Equation F1-4,
E
L p = 1.76ry
Fyf
29000 1
L= 1.76 • 4.02 • = 14.2 ft > L= 14 ft
p
50 12 b
φb M nx =
φb M px
φb M nx =0.9 • 1333.333
φb M nx =
1200 k-ft
φb M ny =
φb M py
φb M ny =
0.9 • 667.198
φb M ny =
600.478 k-ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Interaction Capacity: Compression & Bending
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
Cm
B1 = ≥1
 P 
1 − u 
 Pe1 
For reverse curvature bending and equal end moments:
M1
= +1.0
M2
M 
C m = 0.6 − 0.4 1 
 M2 
C m = 0.6 − 0.4(1.0 ) = 0.2
π2 EI
pe1 =
( KL )
2
π2 • 29000 • 2140
=pe1x = 21, 702 kips
(14.0 • 12 )
2
π2 • 29000 • 838
=pe1 y = 8, 498
(14.0 • 12 )
2
C mx
B1x = ≥1
 Pu 
1 − 
 Pe1x 
0.2
=
B1x = 0.214 ≥ 1
 1400 
1 − 
 21702 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
B1x = 1
C my
B1 y = ≥1
 P 
1 − u 
 P 
 e1 y 
0.2
=
B1 y = 0.239 ≥ 1
 1400 
1 − 
 8498 
B1 y = 1
M ux = 1.0 • 200 = 200 kip-ft;
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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AS 4100-1998 Example 001
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.
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m
Material Properties Loading Design Properties

E = 200x103 MPa N = 200 kN fy = 250 MPa
v = 0.3 Section: 350WC197
G = 76923.08 MPa

 Section compression capacity
AS 4100-1998 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
Percent

Section Axial Capacity,
6275 6275 0.00%
Ns (kN)
Member Axial Capacity, 4385 4385 0.00%
Nc (kN)
COMPUTER FILE: AS 4100-1998 EX001
CONCLUSION
AS 4100-1998 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
(b f − tw ) f y 350 − 20 250
=λe = = 5.89
2•tf 250 2 • 28 250
Flange is under uniform compression, so:
λep 9,=
= λey 16,=
λew 90
λe = 5.89 < λep = 9 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is compact
h fy 331 250
=λe = = 16.55
tw 250 20 250
AS 4100-1998 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Web is under uniform compression, so:

λep 30,
= = λey 45,
= λew 180
λe= 16.55 < λep= 30 , No localized web buckling
Web is compact.
Section is Compact.
Section Compression Capacity:

Section is not Slender, so Kf = 1.0
Ns =
K f An f y =
1 • 25,100 • 250 /103
N s = 6275kN
Member Weak-Axis Compression Capacity:

Frame is considered a braced frame in both directions, so k=
e 22 k=
e 33 1
le 22 6000 le 33 6000
= = 67.216 and
= = 43.119
r22 89.264 r33 139.15
Buckling will occur on the 22-axis.
λ=
le 22 K f fy
=
6000
•
(1 • 250=
) 67.216
n 22
r22 250 89.264 250
2100(λ n 22 − 13.5)
=α a 22 = 20.363
λ n 22 2 − 15.3λ n 22 + 2050
α b 22 = 0.5 since cross-section is not a UB or UC section
λ 22 = λ n 22 + α a 22 α b 22 = 67.216 + 20.363 • 0.5 = 77.398
=
η22 0.00326(λ 22 − 13.5)
= 0.2083 ≥ 0
AS 4100-1998 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 λ 22 
2 2
 77.398 
  + 1 + η22   + 1 + 0.2083
=ξ 22  90 
=  90 
= 1.317
 λ 22 
2 2
 77.398 
2  2 
 90   90 
   90  2  
α c 22 = ξ 22 1 − 1 − 
   ξ 22 λ22   
  
   2 
1 − 90  
α c= 1.317 1 −   = 0.6988
22
   1.317 • 77.398  


N c 22 =
α c 22 N s ≤ N s
N c 22 = 0.6988 • 6275= 4385 kN
AS 4100-1998 Example 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013
REVISION NO.: 0
AS 4100-1998 Example 002
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.
Mx
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m

E = 200x103 MPa Mx = 1000 kN-m fy = 250 MPa
G = 76923.08 MPa

 Section bending capacity
AS 4100-1998 Example 002 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file “SFD-AS-4100-1998.pdf,” which is
also available through the program “Help” menu.
Percent

Section Bending Capacity,
837.5 837.5 0.00%
Ms,major (kN-m)
Member Bending Capacity, 837.5 837.5 0.00%
Mb (kN-m)
CONCLUSION
AS 4100-1998 Example 002 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
fy = 250 MPa
Section: 350WC197
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)
Loadings:
M m * = 1000 kN-m
This leads to:
M 2 * = 250 kN-m
M 3 * = 500 kN-m
M 4 * = 750 kN-m
(b f − tw ) f y 350 − 20 250
=λe = = 5.89
2•tf 250 2 • 28 250
λ ep = 9, λ ey = 16, λ ew = 90
AS 4100-1998 Example 002 - 3

REVISION NO.: 0
=
λ e 5.89 < λ=
ep 9 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is compact
h fy 331 250
=λe = = 16.55
tw 250 20 250
Web is under bending, so:
λ ep = 82, λ ey = 115, λ ew = 180
=
λ e 16.55 <=
λ ep 30 , No localized web buckling
Web is compact.
Section is Compact.

Z=
e Z=
c min( S ,1.5Z ) for compact sections
Z=
e 33 Z=
c 33 3,350, 000 mm 2
M=
s 33 = f y Z=
M s ,major e 33 250 • 3,350, 000 /10002
= =
M s 33 M s ,major 837.5 kN-m
Member Bending Capacity:

kt = 1 (Program default)
kl = 1.4 (Program default)
kr = 1 (Program default)
lLTB = le22 = 6000 mm
le = kt kl kr lLTB = 1 • 1.4 • 1 • 6000 = 8400 mm 2
AS 4100-1998 Example 002 - 4

REVISION NO.: 0
  π2 EI 22   π2 EI w  
M= =
M     GJ + 
le 2  
oa o 2
  le  
  π2 • 2 • 105 • 2 • 108  π2 • 2 • 105 • 4.59 • 1012  

M oa =
Mo =
   76,923.08 • 5, 750, 000 +  
 8, 4002  8, 4002 
M=
oa =
M o 1786.938 kN-m
  2
 M     
 Ms 
2
 s    837.5  837.5 
=α s 0.6   +=  −  +  −
   M oa     1786.938 
3 0.6 3
 M oa   1786.938 
      
α s =0.7954
1.7 M m *
=αm ≤ 2.5
( M 2 *) + ( M 3 *) + ( M 4 *)
2 2 2
1.7 • 1000
α=
m = 1.817 ≤ 2.5
( 250 ) + ( 500 ) + ( 750 )
2 2 2
M b = α mα s M s = 0.7954 • 1.817 • 837.5 ≤ M s
=M b 1210.64 kN-m ≤ 837.5 kN-m
AS 4100-1998 Example 002 - 5

REVISION NO.: 0
AS 4100-1998 Example 003
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.
Mx
N
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m

E = 200x103 MPa N = 200 kN fy = 250 MPa
v = 0.3 Mx = 1000 kN-m Section: 350WC197
G = 76923.08 MPa
AS 4100-1998 Example 003 - 1

REVISION NO.: 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
design documentation contained in the file “SFD-AS-4100-1998.pdf,” which is
available through the program “Help” menu.
Percent

Reduced Section Bending Capacity,
837.5 837.5 0.00%
Mr33 (kN-m)
Reduced In-Plane Member Bending
Capacity, 823.1 823.1 0.00%
Mi33 (kN-m)
Reduced Out-of-Plane Member 837.5 837.5 0.00%
Bending Capacity, Mo (kN-m)
CONCLUSION
AS 4100-1998 Example 003 - 2

REVISION NO.: 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)
φ =0.9
Loadings:
N * = 200 kN
=
M m * 1000 kN − m
From example SFD – IN-01-1, section is Compact in Compression
From example SFD – IN-01-2, section is Compact in Bending
From example SFD – IN-01-1, N s = 6275kN
From example SFD – IN-01-1, N c 22 = 4385 kN
From example SFD – IN-01-2,= =
AS 4100-1998 Example 003 - 3

REVISION NO.: 0
Section Interaction: Bending & Compression Capacity:

 N*  200 
M r 33 =1.18M s 33 1 −  =1.18 • 837.5 1 −  ≤ M s 33 =837.5
 φN s   0.9 • 6275 
=
M r 33 953.252 ≤ 837.5
M r 33 = 837.5kN-m
Member Strong-Axis Compression Capacity:

Strong-axis buckling strength needs to be calculated:
Frame is considered a braced frame in both directions, so ke 33 = 1
le 33 6000
= = 43.119
r33 139.15
λn 33 =
l
e 33
K f fy
=
6000
•
(1 • 250 ) =
43.119
r33 250 139.15 250
2100(λ n 33 − 13.5)
=α a 33 = 19.141
λ n 332 − 15.3λ n 33 + 2050
α b 33 = 0.5 since cross-section is not a UB or UC section
λ 33 = λ n 33 + α a 33α b 33 = 43.119 + 19.141 • 0.5 = 52.690
=
η33 0.00326(λ 33 − 13.5)
= 0.1278 ≥ 0
 λ 33 
2 2
 52.690 
 90  + 1 + η33   + 1 + 0.1278
=ξ33  =   90 
= 2.145
 λ 33 
2 2
 52.690 
2  2 
 90   90 
AS 4100-1998 Example 003 - 4

REVISION NO.: 0
   90  2  
α c 33 = 
ξ33 1 − 1 −  
 
  ξ33λ 33   
  
   2 
90  
α
= 2.145 1 − 1 −  = 0.8474
c 33
   2.145 • 50.690   

N c 33 =
α c 33 N s ≤ N s
=
N c 33 0.8474 • 6275
N c 33 = 5318 kN
Member Interaction: In-Plane Bending and Compression Capacity:

M min 0
β=
m = = 0
M max 1000
Since the section is compact,
   1 + β 3   N*   1 + βm 
3
N* 
M i = M s 33  1 −  m
  1 −  + 1.18   1− 
   2    φN c 33   2  φN c 33 
  
   1 + 0 3   200   1+ 0 
3
200 
Mi =837.5  1 −     1 −  + 1.18   1− 
   2    0.9 • 5318   2  0.9 • 5318 
  
M i = 823.11 kN-m
Member Interaction: Out-of-Plane Bending and Compression Capacity:

1
α bc =
 1 − βm  1 − βm  
3
N * 
 +   0.4 − 0.23 
 2  2   φN c 22  
AS 4100-1998 Example 003 - 5

REVISION NO.: 0
1
α bc =
 1− 0  1− 0  
3
200  
 +   0.4 − 0.23 
 2  2   0.9 • 4385  
α bc =4.120
π2 EI w π2 • 2 • 106 • 4.59 • 1012

2
lz 60002
N oz = GJ + = 76923.08 • 5.75 • 106 +
I 33 + I 22 ( 4.86 + 2 ) • 108
Ag 25100
=
N oz 4.423 • 1011 kN
M b 33o = α mα s M sx w/ an assumed uniform moment such that α m =1.0

M b 33o = 1.0 • 0.7954 • 837.5 = 666.145 kN-m
 N *  N* 
M o 33 =
αbc M b 33o 1 −  1 −  ≤ M r 33
 φN c 22   φN oz 
 200  200 
M o 33 =4.12 • 666.145 1 − 1 − 11 
=
2674 ≤ 837.5
 0.9 • 4385  0.9 • 4.423 • 10 
M o 33 = 837.5 kN-m
AS 4100-1998 Example 003 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
BS 5950-2000 Example 001
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.
L=6.5 m

E = 205000 MPa W = 69 kN/m Ys = 275 MPa
v = 0.3 P = 136 kN Section: UB533x210x92
G = 78846.15 MPa

 Section shear capacity
BS 5950-2000 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
Percent
Compactness Class 1 Class 1 0.00%

Design Moment,
585.4 585.4 0.00%
M33 (kN-m)
Design Shear, Fv (kN) 292.25 292.25 0.00%
Moment Capacity,
649.0 649 0.00%
Mc (kN-m)
Shear Capacity, Pv (kN) 888.4 888.4 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: BS 5950-2000 EX001
CONCLUSION
BS 5950-2000 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
E = 205000 MPa
Ys = 275 MPa
ρ y = 1.0 • 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
wu l + Pu 69 • 6.5 + 136
=Fv =
2 2
Fv = 292.25 kN
BS 5950-2000 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
P
=r1 = 0 (since there is no axial force)
dt ρ y
P
=r2 = 0 (since there is no axial force)
Ag ρ y
275 275
=ε = = 1
ρy 275

b 104.65
λ= = = 6.71
T 15.6
λ ep = 9 ε = 9
=
λ 6.71 < =
λ p 9 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is Class 1.

d 501.9
λ= = = 49.69
t 10.1
Since r1 = r2 = 0 and there is no axial compression:
λ p= 80ε= 80
=λ 49.69 <=
λ p 80 , No localized web buckling
Web is Class 1.
Section is Class 1.
BS 5950-2000 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Section Shear Capacity:

Av 2 =Dt =533.1 • 10.1 =5,384.31mm 2
Pv 2 = 0.6 ρ y Av 2 = 0.6 • 275 • 5384.31
Pv 2 = 888.4 kN

With Shear Reduction:
0.6 • P
=v2 533 kN > =
Fv 292.3kN
So no shear reduction is needed in calculating the bending capacity.
M c = ρ y S33 ≤ 1.2 ρ y Z 33 = 275 • 2,360, 000 ≤ 1.2 • 275 • 2, 072, 031.5
=M c 649 kN-m ≤ 683.77 kN-m
M c = 649 kN-m
BS 5950-2000 Example 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
BS 5950-2000 Example 002
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.
Mx
My
H
A A
Section A-A
H=5m

E = 205000 MPa N = 640 kN Ys = 355 MPa
v = 0.3 Mx = 10.5 kN-m
G = 78846.15 MPa My = 0.66 kN-m
 Section compactness check (compression & bending)
BS 5950-2000 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
Percent

Axial Capacity,
773.2 773.2 0.00%
Nc (kN)
Bending Capacity, 68.3 68.3 0.00%
Mc (kN-m)
CONCLUSION
BS 5950-2000 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
E = 205000 MPa
G = 78846.15 MPa
Ys = 355 MPa
ρ y = 1.0 • 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
P 640
=r1 = = 0.002183
dt ρ y 131 • 6.3 • 355
275 275
=ε = = 0.880
ρy 355
BS 5950-2000 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

b 131.1
λ= = = 20.81
T 6.3
d 131.1
λ p= 28 ε < 80ε − = 28 • 0.880 < 80 • 0.880 −
t 6.3
λ=
p 24.6 < 49.6
=λ 20.81 <=
λ p 24.6 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is Compact.

d 131.1
λ= = = 20.81 :
t 6.3
64ε 64 • 0.88
=
λp < 40
= ε < 40 • 0.88
= 56.3 > 35.2
1 + 0.6r1 1 + 0.6 • 0.002183
So λ p =35.2
=λ 20.81 <=
λ p 35.2 , No localized web buckling
Web is compact.
Section is Compact.

l K l 1.0 • 5000
λ 22 =λ 33 =e 33 = 33 33 = =85.546
r33 r33 58.4483
=λ max {λ 22 , λ=
33 } 85.546
π2 E π2 • 205000
=λ o 0.2= 0.2 = 15.1
ρy 355
Robertson Constant: a = 2.0 (from Table VIII-3 for Rolled Box Section in CSI
code documentation)
=
Perry Factor: η 0.001a ( λ −=
λ 0 ) 0.001 • 2 ( 85.546 − 15.1
= ) 0.141
BS 5950-2000 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
π2 E π2 • 205000
Euler Strength: ρ= = = 276.5 MPa
λ2
E
85.5462
ρ y + ( η + 1) ρ E 355 + ( 0.141 + 1) • 276.5
=φ = = 355.215 MPa
2 2
ρE ρ y 276.5 • 355
=ρc = = 215.967 MPa
φ + φ2 − ρ E ρ y 335.215 + 335.2152 − 276.5 • 355
= g ρc
N c A= 3580 • 215.967
N c = 773.2 kN

ρ y = 1.0 • Ys = 275 MPa
 D   150 
Av =
Ag  =3580 •  =1790 mm 2
 D + B   150 + 150 
Pv = 0.6 ρ y Av 2 = 0.6 • 355 • 1790
Pv = 381.3kN

With Shear Reduction
0.6=
• Pv 228.8 kN=
> Fv 2.1kN
So no shear reduction is needed in calculating the bending capacity.
Mc =
ρ y S33 ≤ 1.2ρ 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.
BS 5950-2000 Example 002 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CSA S16-09 Example 001
WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION & BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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 S16-
09 steel frame design code. The moment and shear strengths are compared with
Handbook of Steel construction (9th Edition) results.
L = 8.0 m

E= 2x108 kN/m2 WD = 7 kN/m ASTM A992
Fy = 350 kN/m2 WL = 15 kN/m CSA G40.21 350W
W410X46
W410X60
 Member bending capacity, Mr (fully restrained)
 Member bending capacity, Mr (buckling)
 Member bending capacity, Mr (LTB)
CSA S16-09 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
Percent
Design Moment, Mf (kN-m) 250.0 250.0 0.00%
(a) Moment Capacity, Mr33 of 278.775 278.775 0.00%

W410X46 (kN-m) w/ lb = 0 m
(b) Moment Capacity, Mr33 of 268.97 268.83 0.05%

W410X46 (kN-m) w/ lb = 2 m
(c) Moment Capacity, Mr33 of 292.10 292.05 0.02%

W410X60 (kN-m) w/ lb = 4 m
COMPUTER FILE: CSA S16-09 EX001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
Ф = 0.9

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Loadings:
wf = (1.25wd + 1.5wl) = 1.25(7) + 1.5(15) = 31.25 kN/m
w f L2 31.25 • 82
=
Mf =
8 8
M f = 250 kN-m
145 145
λCl .1
= = = 7.75
Fy 350
W410x46
bf 140
λ
= = = 6.25
2t f 2 • 11.2
λ < λCl .1 , No localized flange buckling

Flange is Class 1.
W410x60
bf 178
λ
= = = 6.95
2t f 2 • 12.8

Flange is Class 1.
1100  Cf  1100  0 
λCl .1 = 1 − 0.39  = 1 − 0.39  =58.8
Fy  Cy  350  5890 • 350 
W410x46
h 381.6
λ
= = = 54.51
tw 7

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
λ < λCl .1 , No localized web buckling

Web is Class 1.
Section is Class 1
W410x60
h 382.4
λ
= = = 49.66
tw 7.7
Web is Class 1.
Section is Class 1
Calculation of ω2:
ω2 is calculated from the moment profile so is independent of cross section and is
calculated as:
4 • M max
ω2 =
M max 2 + 4 M a 2 + 7 M b 2 + 4 M c 2
where: Mmax = maximum moment
Ma = moment at ¼ unrestrained span
Mb = moment at ½ unrestrained span
Mc = moment at ¾ unrestrained span
Section Bending Capacity for W410x46:

M p = Fy Z 33 = 350 • 885,000 / 10 6 = 309.75 kN-m
φM p = 0.9 • 309.75 = 278.775 kN-m
Member Bending Capacity for Lb = 0 mm (Fully Restrained):

Lb = 0, so Mmax = Ma = Mb = Mc = Mu = 250 kN-m and ω2 = 1.000

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
ω2 π  πE 
2
=Mu EI 22GJ +   I 22Cw → ∞ as L → 0

L  L 
 M p 33 
M r=
33 1.15φM p 33 1 − 0.28  ≤ φM p 33
 Mu 
M p 33
0.28 → 0 as M u → ∞
Mu
leading to M =
r 33 1.15 φ M p 33 > φ M p 33
So
M r 33 =
φ M p 33 =
278.775 kN-m
Member Bending Capacity for Lb = 2000 mm:

L − Lb Lb 8 − 2 2
M a @ x=
a + = + = 3.5 m
2 4 2 4
ω f Lxa ω f xa 2 31.25 • 8 • 3.5 31.25 • 3.52
Ma = − = − = 246.094 kN-m
2 2 2 2
Ma = Mc = 246.094 kN-m @ 3500 mm and 4500 mm
Mmax = Mb = 250 kN-m @ 4000 mm
4 • 250
ω2 = 1.008
250 + 4 • 246.0942 + 7 • 2502 + 4 • 246.0942
2
ω2 = 1.008
ω2 π  πE 
2
=Mu EI 22GJ +   I 22Cw

L  L 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
( 2 •10 ) • ( 5.14 •10 ) • 76923 • (192 •10 )

5 6 3
1.008 • π
Mu =  π ( 2 • 10 ) 
2
5
2000 +  ( 5.14 • 10 )(197.6 • 10 )
6 9
 2000 
 
=
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=
33 1.15φM p 33 1 − 0.28  ≤ φM p 33
 Mu 
 309.75 
M r 33 = 1.15 • 0.9 • 309.75 1 − 0.28 = 268.89 kN-m < 278.775 kN-m
 537.82 
M r 33 = 268.89 kN-m
Section Capacity for W410x60:

M p = Fy Z 33 = 350 • 1190,000 / 10 6 = 416.5 kN-m
φM p = 0.9 • 416.5 = 374.85 kN-m
Member Bending Capacity for Lb = 4000 m:

L − Lb Lb 8 − 4 4
M a @ x=
a + = + = 3m
2 4 2 4
ω f Lxa ω f xa 2 31.25 • 8 • 3 31.25 • 32
Ma = − = − = 234.375 kN-m
2 2 2 2
Ma = Mc = 234.375 kN-m @ 3500 mm and 4500 mm
Mmax = Mb = 250 kN-m @ 4000 mm
4 • 250
ω2 = 1.032
250 + 4 • 234.3752 + 7 • 2502 + 4 • 234.3752
2
ω2 = 1.032

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
ω2 π  πE 
2
=Mu EI 22GJ +   I 22Cw

Ly  L 
( 2 •10 ) • (12 •10 ) • 76923 • ( 328 •10 )

5 6 3
1.032 • π
Mu =  π ( 2 • 10 ) 
2
5
4000 +  (12 • 10 )( 469.8 • 10 )
6 9
 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=
33 1.15φM p 33 1 − 0.28  ≤ φM p 33
 Mu 
 416.5 
M r 33 = 1.15 • 0.9 • 416.5 1 − 0.28
 362.06 
M r 33 = 292.23kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

2000 kN
Mxf = 200 kN-m
A A
3.7 m
W310x118
Mxf = 300 kN-m
Section A-A
E= 200,000 MPa Cf = 2000 kN fy = 345 MPa

ν= 0.3 Mfx-top = 200 kN-m
G= 76,923.08 MPa Mfx-bottom = 300 kN-m

➢ Section compactness check (compression & bending)
➢ Member compression capacity
➢ Member bending capacity with no mid-span loading

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
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.
Percent
Axial Capacity, Cr (kN) 3849.5 3849.5 0.00%
Bending Capacity, Mr33 605.5 605.5 0.00%

(kN-m)
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
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
C w  1.966 • 10
12 6
mm
ro  x o  y o  r22  r33  0  0  77.5457  135.4006

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
ro  24346.658 m m
2 2
Member:
lz= le33 = le22 = 3700 mm (unbraced length)
kz=k33 = k22 =1.0
  0.9
Loadings:
C f  2000 kN
Ma  M xf , top
 200 kN -m
Mb  M xf ,bottom
 300 kN -m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
145 145
 C l .1    7.81
Fy 345
170 170
 C l .2    9.15
Fy 345
bf 307
   8.21
2t f 2 • 18.7
 Cl .1     Cl .2 ,
Flange is Class 2.

345 • 15000
C y  f y Ag   5175 kN
1000
1100  C f  1100  2000 

 C l .1   1  0.39   1  0.39   50.30

Fy  Cy  345  5175 
h 276.6
   23.24
tw 11.9
   C l .1 ,
Web is Class 1.
Section is Class 2

Flexural Buckling
n = 1.34 (wide flange section)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
k 22 l 22 fy 1.0 • 3700 345

  m ax(  22 ,  33 )   22    0.6308
r22  E 77.5457 200000
1 1
 

C r   Ag F y 1  
2n
 n
 0.9 • 15000 • 345 • 1  0.6308  2 •1.34
 1.34
C r  3849.5 kN
Torsional & Lateral-Torsional Buckling

 E  2 • 10
2 2 5
Fex  2
 2
 2643 M Pa
 k 3 3 l3 3   1 • 3700 
   
 r3 3   1 3 5 .4 0 0 6 
 E  2 • 10
2 2 5
Fey  2
 2
 867 M Pa
 k 22 l22   1 • 3700 
   
 r2 2   7 7 .5 4 5 7 
 2 EC  1
Fez   w
 GJ 
  k l 2  A g ro 2
 z z 
  2 • 2 • 10 5 • 1.966 • 10 12  1
Fez    76923.08 • 1.6 • 10 
6
 1 • 3700 
2
 15000 • 24347
 
FeZ  1113.222 M Pa
Fe  m in  Fex , Fey , Fez   Fey  867 M P a
Fy 345
   0.556697
Fe 1113.222
1 1
 

C r   Ag F y 1  
2n
 n

 0.9 • 15000 • 345 • 1  0.556697
2 •1.34
 1.34
C r  4044.7 kN (does not govern)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1

M p 33
 Z 33 F y  1, 950, 000 • 345  672.75 kN -m
4 M m ax
2   2.5
 4M  7M  4M C
2 2 2 2
M m ax A B
4 (300)
2   2.388  2.5
(300)  4(175)  7 (50)  4(75)
2 2 2 2
So  2  2.388
2
2  E 
Mu  E I 22 G J    I 22 C w
l 22  l 22 
2
2.388 •    • 2 • 10 5 
Mu  2 • 10 • 9.02 • 10 • 76923.08 • 1.6 • 10    9.02 • 10 • 1.966 • 10
5 7 6 7 12
3700  3700 
M u  5491.226 kN-m
Since M u  0.67 • M p 33
 M p 33 
M r 33  1.15  M p 33 1  0.28   M p 33
 Mu 
 672.75 
M r 33  1.15 • 0.9 • 672.75 1  0.28  0.9 • 672.75
 5491.226 
M r 33  672.411  605.475
M r 33  605.5 kN -m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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 S16-
14 steel frame design code. The moment and shear strengths are compared with
Handbook of Steel construction (9th Edition) results.
L = 8.0 m

E= 2x108 kN/m2 WD = 7 kN/m ASTM A992
Fy = 350 kN/m2 WL = 15 kN/m CSA G40.21 350W
W410X46
W410X60
 Member bending capacity, Mr (fully restrained)
 Member bending capacity, Mr (buckling)
 Member bending capacity, Mr (LTB)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
Percent
(a) Moment Capacity, Mr33 of 278.775 278.775 0.00%

W410X46 (kN-m) w/ lb = 0 m
(b) Moment Capacity, Mr33 of 268.97 268.83 0.05%

W410X46 (kN-m) w/ lb = 2 m
(c) Moment Capacity, Mr33 of 292.10 292.05 0.02%

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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: CSA G40.21 Grade 350W
fy = 350 MPa
E = 200,000 MPa
G = 76923 MPa
Section: W410x46
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
Ф = 0.9

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Loadings:
wf = (1.25wd + 1.5wl) = 1.25(7) + 1.5(15) = 31.25 kN/m
w f L2 31.25 • 82
=
Mf =
8 8
M f = 250 kN-m
145 145
λCl .1
= = = 7.75
Fy 350
W410x46
bf 140
λ
= = = 6.25
2t f 2 • 11.2

Flange is Class 1.
W410x60
bf 178
λ
= = = 6.95
2t f 2 • 12.8

Flange is Class 1.
1100  Cf  1100  0 
λCl .1 = 1 − 0.39  = 1 − 0.39  =58.8
Fy  Cy  350  5890 • 350 
W410x46
h 381.6
λ
= = = 54.51
tw 7

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Web is Class 1.
Section is Class 1
W410x60
h 382.4
λ
= = = 49.66
tw 7.7
Web is Class 1.
Section is Class 1
Calculation of ω2:
ω2 is calculated from the moment profile so is independent of cross section and is
calculated as:
4 • M max
ω2 =
M max 2 + 4 M a 2 + 7 M b 2 + 4 M c 2
where: Mmax = maximum moment
Ma = moment at ¼ unrestrained span
Mb = moment at ½ unrestrained span
Mc = moment at ¾ unrestrained span
Section Bending Capacity for W410x46:

M p = Fy Z 33 = 350 • 885,000 / 10 6 = 309.75 kN-m
φM p = 0.9 • 309.75 = 278.775 kN-m
Member Bending Capacity for Lb = 0 mm (Fully Restrained):

Lb = 0, so Mmax = Ma = Mb = Mc = Mu = 250 kN-m and ω2 = 1.000

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
ω2 π  πE 
2
=Mu EI 22GJ +   I 22Cw → ∞ as L → 0

L  L 
 M p 33 
M r=
33 1.15φM p 33 1 − 0.28  ≤ φM p 33
 Mu 
M p 33
0.28 → 0 as M u → ∞
Mu
leading to M =
r 33 1.15 φ M p 33 > φ M p 33
So
M r 33 =
φ M p 33 =
278.775 kN-m
Member Bending Capacity for Lb = 2000 mm:

L − Lb Lb 8 − 2 2
M a @ x=
a + = + = 3.5 m
2 4 2 4
ω f Lxa ω f xa 2 31.25 • 8 • 3.5 31.25 • 3.52
Ma = − = − = 246.094 kN-m
2 2 2 2
Ma = Mc = 246.094 kN-m @ 3500 mm and 4500 mm
Mmax = Mb = 250 kN-m @ 4000 mm
4 • 250
ω2 = 1.008
250 + 4 • 246.0942 + 7 • 2502 + 4 • 246.0942
2
ω2 = 1.008
ω2 π  πE 
2
=Mu EI 22GJ +   I 22Cw

L  L 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
( 2 •10 ) • ( 5.14 •10 ) • 76923 • (192 •10 )

5 6 3
1.008 • π
Mu =  π ( 2 • 10 ) 
2
5
2000 +  ( 5.14 • 10 )(197.6 • 10 )
6 9
 2000 
 
=
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=
33 1.15φM p 33 1 − 0.28  ≤ φM p 33
 Mu 
 309.75 
M r 33 = 1.15 • 0.9 • 309.75 1 − 0.28 = 268.89 kN-m < 278.775 kN-m
 537.82 
M r 33 = 268.89 kN-m
Section Capacity for W410x60:

M p = Fy Z 33 = 350 • 1190,000 / 10 6 = 416.5 kN-m
φM p = 0.9 • 416.5 = 374.85 kN-m

L − Lb Lb 8 − 4 4
M a @ x=
a + = + = 3m
2 4 2 4
ω f Lxa ω f xa 2 31.25 • 8 • 3 31.25 • 32
Ma = − = − = 234.375 kN-m
2 2 2 2
Ma = Mc = 234.375 kN-m @ 3500 mm and 4500 mm
Mmax = Mb = 250 kN-m @ 4000 mm
4 • 250
ω2 = 1.032
250 + 4 • 234.3752 + 7 • 2502 + 4 • 234.3752
2
ω2 = 1.032

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
ω2 π  πE 
2
=Mu EI 22GJ +   I 22Cw

Ly  L 
( 2 •10 ) • (12 •10 ) • 76923 • ( 328 •10 )

5 6 3
1.032 • π
Mu =  π ( 2 • 10 ) 
2
5
4000 +  (12 • 10 )( 469.8 • 10 )
6 9
 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=
33 1.15φM p 33 1 − 0.28  ≤ φM p 33
 Mu 
 416.5 
M r 33 = 1.15 • 0.9 • 416.5 1 − 0.28
 362.06 
M r 33 = 292.23kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

2000 kN
Mxf = 200 kN-m
A A
3.7 m
W310x118
Mxf = 300 kN-m
Section A-A
E= 200,000 MPa Cf = 2000 kN fy = 345 MPa

ν= 0.3 Mfx-top = 200 kN-m
G= 76,923.08 MPa Mfx-bottom = 300 kN-m

➢ Section compactness check (compression & bending)
➢ Member compression capacity
➢ Member bending capacity with no mid-span loading

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
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.
Percent
Axial Capacity, Cr (kN) 3849.5 3849.5 0.00%
Bending Capacity, Mr33 605.5 605.5 0.00%

(kN-m)
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
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
C w  1.966 • 10
12 6
mm
ro  x o  y o  r22  r33  0  0  77.5457  135.4006

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
ro  24346.658 m m
2 2
Member:
lz= le33 = le22 = 3700 mm (unbraced length)
kz=k33 = k22 =1.0
  0.9
Loadings:
C f  2000 kN
Ma  M xf , top
 200 kN -m
Mb  M xf ,bottom
 300 kN -m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
145 145
 C l .1    7.81
Fy 345
170 170
 C l .2    9.15
Fy 345
bf 307
   8.21
2t f 2 • 18.7
 Cl .1     Cl .2 ,
Flange is Class 2.

345 • 15000
C y  f y Ag   5175 kN
1000
1100  C f  1100  2000 

 C l .1   1  0.39   1  0.39   50.30

Fy  Cy  345  5175 
h 276.6
   23.24
tw 11.9
   C l .1 ,
Web is Class 1.
Section is Class 2

Flexural Buckling
n = 1.34 (wide flange section)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
k 22 l 22 fy 1.0 • 3700 345

  m ax(  22 ,  33 )   22    0.6308
r22  E 77.5457 200000
1 1
 

C r   Ag F y 1  
2n
 n
 0.9 • 15000 • 345 • 1  0.6308  2 •1.34
 1.34
C r  3849.5 kN
Torsional & Lateral-Torsional Buckling

 E  2 • 10
2 2 5
Fex  2
 2
 2643 M Pa
 k 3 3 l3 3   1 • 3700 
   
 r3 3   1 3 5 .4 0 0 6 
 E  2 • 10
2 2 5
Fey  2
 2
 867 M Pa
 k 22 l22   1 • 3700 
   
 r2 2   7 7 .5 4 5 7 
 2 EC  1
Fez   w
 GJ 
  k l 2  A g ro 2
 z z 
  2 • 2 • 10 5 • 1.966 • 10 12  1
Fez    76923.08 • 1.6 • 10 
6
 1 • 3700 
2
 15000 • 24347
 
FeZ  1113.222 M Pa
Fe  m in  Fex , Fey , Fez   Fey  867 M P a
Fy 345
   0.556697
Fe 1113.222
1 1
 

C r   Ag F y 1  
2n
 n

 0.9 • 15000 • 345 • 1  0.556697
2 •1.34
 1.34
C r  4044.7 kN (does not govern)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1

M p 33
 Z 33 F y  1, 950, 000 • 345  672.75 kN -m
4 M m ax
2   2.5
 4M  7M  4M C
2 2 2 2
M m ax A B
4 (300)
2   2.388  2.5
(300)  4(175)  7 (50)  4(75)
2 2 2 2
So  2  2.388
2
2  E 
Mu  E I 22 G J    I 22 C w
l 22  l 22 
2
2.388 •    • 2 • 10 5 
Mu  2 • 10 • 9.02 • 10 • 76923.08 • 1.6 • 10    9.02 • 10 • 1.966 • 10
5 7 6 7 12
3700  3700 
M u  5491.226 kN-m
Since M u  0.67 • M p 33
 M p 33 
M r 33  1.15  M p 33 1  0.28   M p 33
 Mu 
 672.75 
M r 33  1.15 • 0.9 • 672.75 1  0.28  0.9 • 672.75
 5491.226 
M r 33  672.411  605.475
M r 33  605.5 kN -m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EN 3-2005 Example 001
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.
NEd
My,Ed
L
A A
Section A-A
L = 3.5 m

E = 210x103 MPa N = 210 kN fy = 235 MPa
v = 0.3 My,Ed = 43 kN-m Section: IPE 200
G = 80770 MPa
 Section compactness check (beam-column)
 Member interaction capacities, D/C, Method 1
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
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.
Percent
D/CAxial 0.334 0.334 0.00%
D/CBending 0.649 0.646 0.46%
COMPUTER FILE: EN 3-2005 EX001
CONCLUSION
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
b f − tw − 2r 100 − 5.6 − 2 • 12
=c = = 35.2 mm
2 2
Iyy = 19,430,000 mm4
Wel,y = 194,300 mm3
Wpl,y = 220,600 mm3
Member:
Lyy = Lzz = 3,500 mm (unbraced length)
γM 0 =
1
γM1 =
1
αy = 0.21
Loadings:
N Ed = 210, 000 N
M Ed , y ,Left = 0 N-m
M Ed , y ,Right = 43000 N-m
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
235 235
=ε = = 1
fy 235
1 N Ed 
−1 ≤=
α 1 −  ≤ 1
2  2htw f y 
1 210, 000 
=
α 1 − =  0.6737
2  2 • 200 • 5.6 • 235 

For the tip in compression under combined bending and compression
9ε 9 •1
λ cl .1 = = = 13.36
α 0.6737
c 35.2
λe = = = 4.14
tf 8.5
=
λ e 4.14 < λ=
cl .1 13.36
So Flange is Class 1 in combined bending and compression

α > 0.5, so
396ε 396 • 1
λ= = = 51.05 for combined bending & compression
13α − 1 13 • 0.6737 − 1
cl .1
d 183
λe = = = 28.39
tw 5.6
=
λ e 32.68 < =
λ 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.
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

N c , Rk = Af y = 2.848 • 10−3 • 235 • 106 = 669 kN

π2 EI 22 π2 • 210000 • 106 • 19.43 • 10−6
=
N cr ,22 = = 3287 kN
L2 3.52

M pl , y , Rk= W pl , y f y= 220.6 • 10−6 • 235 • 106= 51.8 kN-m
Interaction Capacities - Method 1:

Member Bending & Compression Capacity with Buckling
Compression Buckling Factors
Af y 2.858 • 10−3 • 235 • 106
=
λy = = 0.451
N cr , y 3287 • 103
φ y 0.5 1 + α y ( λ y − 0.2 ) + λ=

= 2
y 
 0.5 1 + 0.21 • ( 0.451 − 0.2 ) + 0.451
 =2
 0.628
1 1
=
χy = = 0.939 ≤ 1
 y y ( y )  (
φ + φ 2 − λ 2  0.628 + 0.6282 − 0.4512 
 )
Auxiliary Terms
N Ed
1− 1−
210
N cr , y 3287
=µy = = 0.996
N Ed 210
1− χy 1 − 0.939
N cr , y 3287
W pl , y 220.6 • 10−6
=
wy = = 1.135 ≤ 1.5
Wel , y 194.3 • 10−6
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Cmo Factor
M Ed , y ,right 0
=
ψy = = 0
M Ed , y ,left 43 • 103
0.79 + 0.21ψ y + 0.36 ( ψ y − 0.33)

N Ed
Cmy=
,0
N cr , y
210
Cmy =
,0 0.79 + 0.21 • 0 + 0.36 ( 0 − 0.33) = 0.782
3287
=
Cmy C=
my ,0 0.782 because no LTB is likely to occur.
Elastic-Plastic Bending Resistance
Because LTB is prevented, bLT = 0 so aLT = 0
 
 1.6  N 
1 + ( wy − 1)  2 −
1.6
C yy = Cmy 2 λ 22 − Cmy 2 λ y 2  Ed − bLT 
 wy wy  N c , Rk
 
 γM1 
 
 
 1.6 1.6  210 • 10
3 
1 + (1.135 − 1)  2 −
C yy = • 0.7822 • 0.451 − • 0.7822 • 0.4512  − 0 
 1.135  669 • 10
3
1.135 
 1.0 
Wel , y 194.3 • 10−6

C yy = 1.061 ≥ = = 0.881
W pl , y 220.6 • 10−6
N Ed 210 • 103
=
D / CAxial =
N c , Rk 669 • 103
χy 0.939
γ M1 1
D / CAxial = 0.334
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
   
   
 Cmy M Ed , y ,right   0.782 • 43 • 10 3

D / CBending =
µy   =
0.996
   210 • 10 
3
51.8 • 10 3 
 1 − N Ed  C M pl , y , Rk   1 − 3 
1.061 
  N cr , y  yy γ M 1    3287 • 10  1 
 
D / CBending = 0.646
D / CTotal = 0.980
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 7

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
WIDE FLANGE SECTION UNDER BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.
NEd
A
A
L/2 L/2 Section A-A
L = 1.4 m

E = 210x103 MPa N = 1050 kN fy = 275 MPa
v = 0.3 Section: 406x178x74 UB
G = 80770 MPa

 Section compactness (beam)
 Section bending capacity with shear reduction
EN 3-2005 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
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.
Percent

Section Shear Resistance,
689.2 689.2 0.00%
Vpl,Rd (kN)
Section Bending Resistance,
412.8 412.8 0.00%
Mc,y,Rd (kN-m)
Section Shear-Reduced Bending
386.8 386.8 0.00%
Resistance, Mv,y,Rd (kN-m)
CONCLUSION
EN 3-2005 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
b − tw − 2r 179.5 − 9.5 − 2 • 10.2

=c = = 74.8 mm
2 2
Wpl,y = 501,000 mm3
Other:
γ M 0 = 1.0
η = 1.2
Loadings:
N Ed = 0 kN
N = 1050 kN @ mid-span
Results in the following internal forces:
VEd = 525 kN
M Ed = 367.5 kN-m
EN 3-2005 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
235 235
=ε = = 0.924
fy 275

λ cl .1 = 9ε = 9 • 0.924 = 8.32 for pure compression
c 74.8
λe = = = 4.68
tf 16
=
λ e 4.68 < λ=
cl .1 8.32
So Flange is Class 1 in pure compression

λ cl .1= 72ε= 72 • 0.924= 66.56 for pure bending
d 360.4
λe = = = 37.94
tw 9.5
=
λ e 37.94 < =
λ 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 = η h wtw = 1.2 • 380.8 • 9.5 = 4341mm 2
Av = A − 2bt f + (tw + 2r )t f = 9450 − 2 • 179.5 • 16 + ( 9.5 + 2 • 10.2 ) • 16
=Av 4021.2 mm 2 < Av − min
So Av = 4341mm 2
EN 3-2005 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Av  f y  4341  275 
= =   = 689, 245 N
γ M 0  3  1.0  3 
V pl , Rd
V pl , Rd = 689.2 kN

W pl , y f y 1501, 000 • 275
=
M = = 412, 775, 000 N-mm
c , y , Rd
γM0 1
M c , y , Rd = 412.8 kN-m

2
 2VEd   2 • 525 2
=
ρ  − 1=  − 1= 0.27
 V pl , Rd   689.2 
 
Aw = hwtw = 380.8 • 9.5 = 3617.6 mm 2
fy  ρ Aw 2  275  0.27 • 3617.62 

=
M v , y , Rd  W − =  1,501, 000 − 
γ M 0  pl , y 4tw  1.0  4 • 9.5 
M v , y , Rd = 386,829, 246 N-mm
M v , y , Rd = 386.8 kN-m
EN 3-2005 Example 002 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
WIDE FLANGE SECTION UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.
A M
A
L Section A-A
L = 0.4 m

E = 210x103 MPa P = 1400 kN fy = 235 MPa
v = 0.3 M = 200 kN-m Section: 457x191x98 UB
G = 80769 MPa

EN 3-2005 Example 003 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file “SFD-EC-3-2005.pdf”, which is also
Percent

Section Compression Resistance,
2937.5 2937.5 0.00%
Npl,Rd (kN)
Section Plastic Bending Resistance,
524.1 524.5 -0.08%
Mpl,y,Rd (kN-m)
Section Reduced Bending Resistance, -0.09%
341.9 342.2
Mn,y,Rd (kN-m)
CONCLUSION
EN 3-2005 Example 003 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
E = 210000 MPa
fy = 235 MPa
A = 12,500 mm2
b = 192.8 mm, tf = 19.6 mm, h = 467.2 mm, tw = 11.4 mm, r = 10.2 mm
hw = h − 2t f = 467.2 − 2 • 19.6 = 428 mm
d = h − 2 ( t f + r ) = 467.2 − 2 • (19.6 + 10.2 ) = 407.6 mm
b − tw − 2r 192.8 − 11.4 − 2 • 10.2

=c = = 80.5 mm
2 2
Wpl,y = 2,232,000 mm3
Other:
γM 0 =
1.0
Loadings:
P = 1400 kN axial load
N Ed = 1400 kN
M = 200 kN-m
235 235
=ε = = 1
fy 235
EN 3-2005 Example 003 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
1 N Ed 
−1 ≤ α= 1 −  ≤ 1
2  2htw f y 
1 1, 400, 000 
=
α 1 − =  2.7818 > 1, so
2  2 • 467.2 • 11.4 • 235 
α =1.0

For the tip in compression under combined bending & compression
9ε 9 • 1
λ cl .1 = = = 9
α 1
c 80.5
λe = = = 4.11
t f 19.6
=
λ e 4.11 < λ=
cl .1 9

α > 0.5, so
396ε 396 • 1
13α − 1 13 • 1 − 1
cl .1
d 407.6
λe = = = 35.75
tw 11.4
=
λ e 35.75 > =
λ cl .1 33.00
456ε 456 • 1
λ= = = 38.00
13α − 1 13 • 1 − 1
cl .2
=
λ e 35.75 < λ
= cl .2 38.00
So Web is Class 2 in combined bending & compression.
EN 3-2005 Example 003 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Since Web is Class 2, Section is Class 2 in combined bending & compression.
Section Compression Capacity

Af y 12,500 • 235
N pl= =
γM 0
, Rd
1
N pl , Rd = 2937.5 kN

W pl , y f y 2, 232, 000 • 235
M= =
γM 0
pl , y , Rd
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
hwtw f y 428 • 11.4 • 235

N Ed =
1400kN > 0.5 =
0.5 • =
573.3kN
γM 0 1
So moment resistance must be reduced.
N Ed 1400
=n = = 0.48
N pl , Rd 2937.5
A − 2bt f 12,500 − 2 • 192.8 • 19.6
=a = = 0.40
A 12,500
1− n 1 − 0.48
M N= M pl , y , Rd = 524.5 •
1 − 0.5a 1 − 0.5 • 0.4
, y , Rd
M N , y , Rd = 342.2 kN-m
EN 3-2005 Example 003 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
IS 800-2007 Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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
NEd
L
A A
Section A-A
L = 3m

E = 200x103 MPa N = 1 kN fy = 250 MPa
v = 0.3 fu = 410 MPa
G = 76923 MPa Section: ISMB 350

 Section compactness check (column)
IS 800-2007 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
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.
Percent
Compactness Plastic Plastic 0.00%
Design Axial Strength, Ncrd 733.85 734.07 -0.03%
COMPUTER FILE: IS 800-2007 EX001
CONCLUSION
IS 800-2007 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
h =d − 2 ( t f + r ) =350 − 2 (14.2 + 1.8 ) =318 mm
ry = 28.4 mm, rz = 143 mm

Member:
KLy = KLz = 3,000 mm (unbraced length)
γM 0 =
1.1
Loadings:
N Ed = 1 kN
250 250
=ε = = 1
fy 250

λ=
p 8.4ε= 8.4 •=
1 8.4
b 70
λe = = = 4.93
t f 14.2
=
λ e 4.93 < λ
= p 8.40
So Flange is Plastic in compression
IS 800-2007 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

λ p= N / A & λ s= 42ε= 42 for compression
d 318
λe = = = 39.26
tw 8.1
=
λ e 39.26 < =
λ s 42
So Web is Plastic in compression
Since Flange & Web are Plastic, Section is Plastic.
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, α =0.21 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)
π2 E π2 200, 000
=
Euler Buckling Stress: f cc = 2
= 2
4485 MPa
 K z Lz   3, 000 
   
 rz   143 
fy 250
=
λz = = 0.2361
f cc 4485
IS 800-2007 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
=φ 0.5 1 + α ( λ − 0.2 ) + =

λ 2  0.5 1 + 0.21( 0.2361 − 0.2 ) + 0.23612 
φ =0.532
1 1
=
Stress Reduction Factor: χ = = 0.9920
φ+ φ −λ
2 2
0.532 + 0.5322 − 0.23612
fy 250
f cd , z =
χ =
0.992 • =
255.5 MPa
γM 0 1.1
Y-Y Axis Parameters:

For buckling curve b, α =0.34 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)
π2 E π2 200, 000
=
Euler Buckling Stress: f cc = 2
= 2
177 MPa
 K z Lz   3, 000 
   
 rz   28.4 
fy 250
λ
= y = = 1.189
f cc 177
=φ 0.5 1 + α ( λ − 0.2 ) + =

λ 2  0.5 1 + 0.34 (1.189 − 0.2 ) + 1.1892 
φ =1.375
1 1
=
Stress Reduction Factor: χ = = 0.4842
φ+ φ −λ
2 2
1.375 + 1.3752 − 1.1892
fy 250
f cd , y =
χ =
0.4842 • =
110.1MPa Governs
γM 0 1.1
=
Pd Af=
cd , y 6670 • 110.1
Pd = 734.07 kN
IS 800-2007 Example 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
IS 800-2007 Example 002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.
Section A-A
L1 L2 L3 A
w
L1 = 4.9 m L2 = 6 m L3 = 4.9 m
E = 200x103 MPa w = 48.74 kN/m fy = 250 MPa
v = 0.3 Section: ISLB 500
G = 76923 MPa
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

 Section compactness check (beam)
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file “SFD-IS-800-2007.pdf,” which is
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.
Percent

157.70 157.93 0.14%
Md(LTB) (kN-m)
603.59 603.59 0.00%
Vd (kN)
CONCLUSION
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 f 180
=
b = = 90 mm
2 2
d =h − 2 ( t f + r ) =500 − 2 (14.1 + 0 ) =471.8 mm
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)
γM 0 =
1.1
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Loadings:
N Ed = 0 kN
ω = 48.75 kN/m
250 250
=ε = = 1
fy 250
r1 = 0 since there is no axial force

λ=
p 9.4ε= 9.4 •=
1 9.4
b 90
λe = = = 6.38
t f 14.1
=
λ e 6.38 < λ
= p 9.40
So Flange is Plastic in pure bending

84ε 84 • 1
=
λp = = 84
(1 + r1 ) (1 + 0)
d 471.8
λe = = = 51.28
tw 9.2
=
λ e 51.28 <=
λ p 84.00
So Web is Plastic in pure bending
Since Flange & Web are Class 1, Section is Plastic.
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

fy 250
Vd= htw= • 500 • 9.2
γM 0 3 1.1 3
Vd = 603.59 kN
Member Bending Capacity

h f =h − t f =500 − 14.1 =485.9
d t 3 2 • 180 • 14.13 485.9 • 9.23

3
bi ti 3 2b f t f
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
t1= t2= t f and b1= b2= b f for symmetric sections
h f 2t1t2b13b23 485.92 • 14.1 • 14.1 • 1803 • 1803

=
Iw = = 8.089 • 1011 mm 6
(
12 t1b1 + t2b2
3 3
) (
12 • 14.2 • 180 + 14.2 • 180
3 3
)
C1 = 1.0 (Assumed in example and specified in ETABS)
π2 EI y  π2 EI w 
=M cr C1  GI + 
( KL )  ( KL ) 
2 t 2
π2 • 200, 000 • 10, 639, 000.2  π2 • 200, 000 • 8.089 • 1011 

=M cr 1.0  76,923 • 462,508 + 
( 6, 000 )
2
 ( 6, 000 )
2

 
M cr = 215,936,919.3 N-mm
α LT =
0.21
βb =1.0
βb Z pz f y 1 • 1,543, 200 • 250

=
λ LT = = 1.337
M cr 215,936,919.3
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
φ LT 0.5 1 + α LT ( λ LT − 0.2 ) + λ LT

= = 2
 0.5 1 + 0.21 • (1.337 − 0.2 ) + 1.337 2 
φ LT =
1.5127
1
=χ LT ≤ 1.0
φ LT + φ LT 2 − λ LT 2
1
χ LT
= = 0.450 ≤ 1.0
1.5127 + 1.5127 2 − 1.337 2
χ LT f y 0.450 • 250
=
fbd = = 102.3MPa
γM 0 1.1
= Z pz fbd= 1543.2 • 103 • 102.3

M d , LTB = 157,925, 037.7 N-mm
M d , LTB = 157.93kN-m
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
IS 800-2007 Example 003
WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BIAXIAL BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

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

E = 200x103 MPa N = 2500 kN fy = 250 MPa
v = 0.3 Mz,top = 350 kN-m Section: W310x310x226
G = 76923.08 MPa Mz,bot = -350 kN-m
My,top = 100 kN-m
My,bot = 0
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 for Major & Minor Axes
 Interaction Capacity, D/C, for Major & Minor Axes
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file “SFD-IS-800-2007.pdf”, which is also
Example 13.2 on pp. 1101-1106 in “Design of Steel Structures” by N.
Subramanian.
Percent
Plastic Compression Resistance,
6520 6520 0.00%
Nd (kN)
Buckling Resistance in Compression,
6511 6511 0.00%
Pdz (kN)
5295 5295 0.00%
Pdy (kN)
897.46 897.46 0.00%
Mdz (kN-m)
325.65 325.65 0.00%
Mdy (kN-m)
Buckling Resistance in Bending,
886.84 886.84 0.00%
MdLTB (kN-m)
1009.2 1009.2 0.00%
Vdy (kN)
2961.6 2961.6 0.00%
Vdz (kN)
Interaction Capacity, D/C 1.050 1.050 0.00%
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CONCLUSION
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 f 317
=
b = = 158.5 mm ,
2 2
d =h − 2 ( t f + r ) =348 − 2 ( 35.6 + 0 ) =276.8 mm
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)
γ M 0 = 1.1
Loadings:
P = 2500 kN
Vz = 25 kN
Vy = 175 kN
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
=
M z −1 350 kN − m
M z −2 =
−350 kN − m
=
M y −1 100 kN − m
M=
y −2 0 kN − m
fy 250
=ε = = 1
250 250
P 2,500, 000
=r1 = = 2.01676
fy 2.5
dtw 246.8 • 22.1 •
γ mo 1.1
λ p= 9.4ε= 9.4 • 1= 9.4
b 158.5
λ=
e = = 4.45
tf 35.6
λe = 4.45 < λ p = 9.40

So Flange is Plastic in pure bending

84ε 84 • 1
=λp = = 27.84
(1 + r1 ) (1 + 2.01676)
d 246.8
λ=
e = = 11.20
tw 22.1
λe= 11.20 < λ p= 27.84
So Web is Plastic in bending & compression
Section is Plastic.
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Ag f y 28687.7 • 250
=
Nd =
γM0 1.1
N d = 6520 kN

For major z-z axis
Avz =htw =348 • 22.1 =7690.8 mm 2
fy 250
=
VPz = Avz • 7690.8
γM0 3 1.1 3
VPz = 1009.2 kN
For minor y-y axis
Avy =2b f t f =•
2 317 • 35.6 =22,570.4 mm 2
fy 250
=
VPy = Avy • 22570.4
γM0 3 1.1 3
VPy = 2961.6 kN

For major z-z axis
βb Z pz f y 1 • 3,948,812.3 • 250 1.2Z ez f y 1.2 • 3, 403, 012.8 • 250
M dz = = ≤ =
γM0 1.1 γM0 1.1
=
M dz 897.46 kN − m ≤ 933.54 kN − m
=M dz 897.46 kN − m
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
For minor y-y axis
βb Z py f y 1 • 1,822,502.2 • 250 1.2 Z ey f y 1.2 • 1,194, 040.3 • 250

M dy = = ≤ =
γM0 1.1 γM0 1.1
=
M dy 414.21 kN − m ≤ 325.65 kN − m
=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.
For minor y-y axis
Vy =
175 kN < 0.6VPy =
0.6 • 2961.6 =
1777 kN No shear reduction is needed.
With Compression Reduction:

P 2500
=
n = = 0.383
N d 6520
For major z-z axis

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
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 7

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

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).
For buckling curve b, α = 0.34 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)
K z = 0.65
K z Lz 2600
K z Lz =0.65 • 4000 =2600 mm, = =18.097
rz 143.668
π 2E π 2 • 200, 000
=
Euler Buckling Stress: f cr , z = = 6027 MPa
(18.097 )
2 2
 K z Lz 
 
 rz 
fy 250
=λz = = 0.2037
f cr , z 6022
φz = 0.5 1 + α z ( λz − 0.2 ) + λz 2  = 0.5 1 + 0.34 ( 0.2037 − 0.2 ) + 0.2037 2 
φz = 0.5214
1 1
=
Stress Reduction Factor: χ z = = 0.9987
φ z + φ z − λz
2 2
0.5214 + 0.52142 − 0.2037 2
fy 250
f cd , z= χ = 0.9987 • = 226.978 MPa
γM0 1.1
=
Pdz f=
cd , z Ag 226.978 • 28, 687.7
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Pdz = 6511 kN

For buckling curve c, α = 0.49 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)
K y = 1.00
K y Ly 4000
K y Ly =
1 • 4000 =
4000 mm, = =
49.25
ry 81.222
π 2E π 2 • 200, 000
=
Euler Buckling Stress: f cr , y = = 813.88 MPa
( 49.25)
2 2
 K y Ly 
 
 ry 
fy 250
=λy = = 0.5542
f cr , y 813.88
φ y = 0.5 1 + α y ( λ y − 0.2 ) + λ y 2  = 0.5 1 + 0.49 ( 0.5542 − 0.2 ) + 0.55422 
φ y = 0.7404
1 1
=
Stress Reduction Factor: χ y = = 0.8122
φ y + φ y − λy
2 2
0.7404 + 0.74042 − 0.55422
fy 250
f cd , y= χ = 0.8122 • = 184.584 MPa
γM0 1.1
=
Pdy f=
cd , y Ag 184.584 • 28, 687.7
Pdy = 5295 kN
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 9

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

C1 = 2.7 (Program Calculation from AISC equation, where C1 < 2.7 )
π 2 EI y  π 2 EI w 
=M cr C1  GI + 
( KL )  ( KL ) 
2 t 2
π 2 • 200, 000 • 189,300, 000  π 2 • 200, 000 • 4.611 • 1012 

=M cr 2.7  76,923.08 • 10, 658,941.4 + 
( 4, 000 )
2
 ( 4, 000 )
2

 
=M cr 15,374, 789,309 N − mm
α LT = 0.21
βb = 1.0
βb Z pz f y 1 • 3,948,812.3 • 250
=λLT = = 0.2534
M cr 15,374, 789,309
φLT = 0.5 1 + α LT ( λLT − 0.2 ) + λLT 2  = 0.5 1 + 0.21 • ( 0.2534 − 0.2 ) + 0.25342 
φLT = 0.5377
1
=χ LT ≤ 1.0
φLT + φLT 2 + λLT 2
1
χ LT
= = 0.9882 ≤ 1.0
0.5377 + 0.5377 2 + 0.25342
χ LT f y 0.9882 • 250
=
fbd = = 224.58 MPa
γM0 1.1
M dLTB = Z pz fbd = 3,948,812.3 • 224.58 = 886,839, 489 N − mm
=
M dLTB 886.84 kN − m
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 10

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Member Bending & Compression Capacity with Buckling
Z-Z Axis
P 2500
=
nz = = 0.3839
Pdz 6511
K z = 1 + ( λz − 0.2 ) nz = 1 + ( 0.2037 − 0.2 ) • 0.3839 ≤ 1 + 0.8nz = 1 + 0.8 • ( 0.3839 )

=
K z 1.0014 ≤ 1.3072 so K z = 1.0014
M 2 −350
ψz = = = −1
M1 350
= 0.6 + 0.4ψ
Cmz = 0.6 + 0.4 • −=
1 0.2 > 0.4 so Cmz
= 0.4
Y-Y Axis
P 2500
=
ny = = 0.4721
Pdy 5295
K y = 1 + ( λ y − 0.2 ) n y = 1 + ( 0.554 − 0.2 ) • 0.4721 ≤ 1 + 0.8n y = 1 + 0.8 • ( 0.4721)
=
K y 1.167 ≤ 1.378 so K y = 1.167
M2 0
ψ
= y = = 0
M 1 100
Cmy = 0.6 + 0.4ψ = 0.6 + 0.4 • 0= 0.6 > 0.4 so Cmy = 0.6
Lateral-Torsional Buckling
CmLT = 0.4
0.1λLT n y 0.1n y
K LT = 1 − ≥ 1−
CmLT − 0.25 CmLT − 0.25
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 11

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
0.1 • 0.2534 • 0.4721 0.1 • 0.4721

K LT = 1 − = 0.920 ≥ 1 − = 0.831
0.4 − 0.25 0.4 − 0.25
K LT = 0.920
Formula IS 9.3.2.2 (a)

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
Formula IS 9.3.2.2 (b)
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
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 12

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
KBC 2009 Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
is loaded with a uniform load of 6.5 kN/m (D) and 11 kN/m (L). The flexural
Lb = 1.75 m, 4 m and 12 m.

W460x74 w = 6.5 kN/m (D) Span, L = 12m
E = 205,000 MPa w = 11.0 kN/m (L)
Fy = 345 MPa

 Section Compactness Check (Bending)
 Member Bending Capacities
KBC 2009 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are comparing with the results of ETABS.
Percent
Cb ( Lb =1.75m) 1.004 1.002 0.20%
φb M n ( Lb =1.75m) (kN-m) 515.43 515.43 0.00%
Cb ( Lb =4m) 1.015 1.014 0.10%
φb M n ( Lb =4m) (kN-m) 394.8 394.2 0.15%
Cb ( Lb =12m) 1.136 1.136 0.00%
φb M n ( Lb =12m) (kN-m) 113.48 113.45 0.03%
COMPUTER FILE: KBC 2009 EX001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
E = 205,000 MPa, Fy = 345 MPa
Section: W460x74
h = d − 2t f = 457 − 2 • 14.5 = 428 mm
h0 = d − t f = 457 − 14.5 = 442.5 mm

S33 = 1457.3 cm3, Z33 = 1660 cm3
Iy =1670 cm4, ry = 42 mm, Cw = 824296.4 cm6, J = 51.6 cm4
I y Cw 1670 • 824296.4
=rts = = 50.45 mm
S33 1457.3

Other:
c = 1.0
L = 12 m
Loadings:
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 1.2(6.5) + 1.6(11) = 25.4 kN/m
Mu =
wu L2
8
∙
= 25.4 122/8 = 457.2 kN-m
bf 191
λ
= = = 6.586
2t f 2 • 14.5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E 205, 000
=λ p 0.38
= 0.38 = 9.263
Fy 345

Flange is Compact.

h 428
λ
= = = 47.56
tw 9
E 205, 000
=λ p 3.76
= 3.76 = 91.654
Fy 345

Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.

M p =Fy Z 33 =345 • 1660 =572.7 kN-m

Critical Lengths:
E 205, 000
Lp =
1.76 ry =
1.76 • 42 =
1801.9 mm =
1.8 m
Fy 345
2
E Jc  0.7 Fy S33 ho 
=Lr 1.95rts 1 + 1 + 6.76  
0.7 Fy S33 ho  E Jc 
2
205, 000 51.6 • 1  0.7 • 345 1457.3 • 44.8 
Lr = 1.95 • 50.45 1 + 1 + 6.76  
0.7 • 345 1457.3 • 44.25  205, 000 51.6 • 1 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Lr = 5.25 m

For the lateral-torsional buckling limit state, the non-uniform moment magnification factor is
calculated using the following equation:
12.5M max
Cb = Rm ≤ 3.0 Eqn. 1
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
Where MA = first quarter-span moment, MB = mid-span moment, MC = second quarter-span
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:
2
1L 
M A = MC = 1−  b 
4 L 
Member Bending Capacity for Lb = 1.75 m:

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1  1.75 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   =
0.995
4 L  4  12 
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.995 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.995 )
Cb = 1.002
=
M n =
M p 572.7 kN-m
φb M=
n 0.9 • 572.7
φb M n = 515.43 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1 4 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   = 0.972
4 L  4  12 
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 )
Cb = 1.014
  Lb − L p 
M n = C b  M p − (M p − 0.7 Fy S 33 )  ≤Mp
  L − L 
 r p 
  4.00 − 1.80  
=M n 1.014 572.7 − ( 572.7 − 0.7 • 0.345 • 1457.3)  =   437.97 kN-m
  5.25 − 1.80  
φb M=
n 0.9 • 437.97
φb M n = 394.2 kN-m

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L  1  12 
MA =
MC =
1−  b  =
1−   = 0.750 .
4 L  4  12 
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb = (1.00 )
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 )
Cb = 1.136

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
2
=Fcr 2
1 + 0.078  
 Lb  S33 ho  rts 
 
 rts 
1.136 • π 2 • 205, 000 51.6 • 1
2
 12000 
Fcr = 1 + 0.078   =
86.5 MPa
 12000 
2
1457.3 • 44.25  50.45 
 
 50.45 
Mn =
86.5 • 1457.3 =
126.056kN-m
φb M=
n 0.9 • 126.056
φb M n = 113.45 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
a simply supported column with a height of 5m.


PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
ETABS.
Percent
φcPn (kN) 2056.7 2056.7 0.00 %
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
E = 205,000 MPa, Fy =345 MPa

d = 432 mm, bf = 203 mm, tf = 25 mm, h = 382 mm, tw = 7 in.
A = 2(203)(25) + (382)(7) = 128.24 cm2

2(25)(203)3 (382)(7)3
I y= + = 34.867 E 06 mm3
12 12
Iy 34.867 E 06
=
ry = = 52.1 mm.
A 12824
I x = ∑ Ad 2 + ∑ I x
Cw = 1443463.1 cm 6
bt 3
=J ∑ 3 216.1 cm4
=
Member:
L=5m
Loadings:
Pu = 1.2(300) + 1.6(700) = 1800 kN
Check for slender elements using Specification KBC 2009:
-3
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

b 101.5
λ=
= = 4.06
t 25
E 205, 000
=λ p 0.38
= 0.38 = 9.263
Fy 345
Flange is Compact.

h 382
=λ= = 54.57 ,
t 7
E 205, 000
=λr 1.49
= 1.49 = 36.32
Fy 345
Web is Slender.
Section is Slender

inspection.
KLy 1.0 • 5000

= = 95.97
ry 52.1
π 2E π 2 • 205, 000
=Fe = = 219.68 MPa
( 95.97 )
2 2
 KL 
 
 r 

-4
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 π 2 EC w  1
Fe =  + GJ 
 (K z L )  Ix + Iy
2
 π 2 • 205, 000 • 1443463.1E 06  1

=Fe  + 78846.15 • 216.1E 04 
( 5000 )  ( 45338 + 3486.7 ) E 04
2

= 588 MPa > 288.84 MPa
Fe = 220 MPa

Qs = 1.0

Take f as Fcr with Q = 1.0
E 205, 000 KLy

4.71 = 4.71 = 114.8 > = 95.97
QFy 1.0 ( 345 ) ry
So
 QFy
  1.0( 345 )

f = Fcr =Q 0.658  Fy =1.0 0.658 220  • 345 =178.98 MPa
Fe
   
E  0.34 E 
be = 1.92t1 −  ≤ b, where b = h
f  (b t ) f 
205, 000  0.34 205, 000 
be = 1.92 ( 7 ) 1 −  ≤ 359.12 mm
178.98  ( 382 7 ) 178.98 
=be 359.12 mm ≤ 382 mm

Aeff = betw + 2b f t f =( 359.12 )( 7 ) + 2 ( 203)( 25) =12663.84 mm 2
-5
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Aeff 12663.84
=
Qa= = 0.9875
A 12824
=Q Q=
s Qa (1.00 )( 0.9875
= ) 0.9875
E 205, 000 KLy

4.71 = 4.71 = 138.47 > = 95.97
QFy 0.9875 ( 345 ) ry
E KL
When 4.71 ≥
QFy r
 QFy
  0.9875( 345 )

=Fcr Q 0.658
= Fe
 Fy 0.9875 0.658 220=  • 345 178.2 MPa
   
Pn = Fcr Ag = 12824 • 178.2 = 2285236.8 N

φc =0.90
φc P=
n Fcr Ag= 0.90 ( 2285.24=) 2056.7 kN > 1800 kN
-6
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
NTC 2008 Example 001
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
A M
A
L Section A-A
L = 0.4 m

E = 210x103 MPa P = 1400 kN fy = 235 MPa
v = 0.3 M = 200 kN-m Section: 457x191x98 UB
G = 80769 MPa

 Section bending capacity with compression & shear reductions
 Interaction capacity, D/C
NTC 2008 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file “SFD-NTC-2008.pdf,” which is
Percent

2797.6 2797.6 0.00%
Nc,Rd (kN)
667.5 667.5 0.00%
Vc,Rd,y (kN)
499.1 499.1 0.00%
Mc,y,Rd (kN-m)
Section Bending Resistance Axially
Reduced, 310.8 310.8 0.00%
MN,y,Rd (kN-m)
Section Bending Resistance Shear
Reduced, 470.1 470.1 0.00%
MV,y,Rd (kN-m)
COMPUTER FILE: NTC 2008 EX001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
E = 210000 MPa
fy = 235 MPa
A = 12,500 mm2
b = 192.8 mm, tf = 19.6 mm, h = 467.2 mm, tw = 11.4 mm, r = 0 mm
hw = h − 2t f = 467.2 − 2 • 19.6 = 428 mm
d = h − 2 ( t f + r ) = 467.2 − 2 • (19.6 + 0 ) = 428 mm
b − tw − 2r 192.8 − 11.4 − 2 • 0
=c = = 90.7 mm
2 2
Wpl,y = 2,230,000 mm3
Other:
γM 0 =
1.05
Loadings:
M y = 200 kN-m bending load at one end
N Ed = 1400 kN
VEd = 500 kN
M y , Ed = 200 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
235 235
=ε = = 1
fy 235
1 N Ed 
−1 ≤=
α 1 −  ≤ 1
2  2htw f y 
1 1, 400, 000 
=
α 1 − =  2.7818 > 1, so
2  2 • 467.2 • 11.4 • 235 
α =1.0

9ε 9 • 1
λ cl .1 = = = 9
α 1
c 90.7
λe = = = 4.63
t f 19.6
=
λ e 4.63 < λ=
cl .1 9

α > 0.5, so
396ε 396 • 1
13α − 1 13 • 1 − 1
cl .1
d 428
λe = = = 37.54
tw 11.4
=
λ e 37.54 > =
λ cl .1 33.00
456ε 456 • 1
λ= = = 38.00
13α − 1 13 • 1 − 1
cl .2
=
λ e 37.54 < λ
= cl .2 38.00

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Af y 12,500 • 235
N= N pl= =
γM 0
c , Rd , Rd
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
fy 235
=
Vc , Rd , y = Avy • 5,165.7
γM 0 3 1.05 3
Vc , Rd , y = 667.5 kN
η =1.0
hw 428 72 235 72 235

== 37.5 < = =
72
tw 11.4 η fy 1.0 235
So no shear buckling needs to be checked.

W pl , y f y 2, 230, 000 • 235
=
M M= =
γM 0
c , y , Rd pl , y , Rd
1.05
M c , y , Rd = 499.1kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
with Shear Reduction

V=
Ed 500 kN > 0.5 • Vc ,=
Rd 333.7 kN Shear Reduction is needed
Av =htw =467.2 • 11.4 =4,879.2 mm 2
2
 2V   2 • 500 2
ρ
=  Ed − 1=  − 1= 0.2482
V   667.5 
 c , Rd 
 ρAv 2   0.2482 • 4879.22 

W −
 pl , y 4t  yk f 2, 230, 000 −  • 235
 w   4 • 11.4 
=M y ,V , Rd = ≤ M y ,c , Rd
γM 0 1.05
M V ,r , Rd = 470.1kN-m
with Compression Reduction
N Ed 1400
=n = = 0.50
N pl , Rd 2797.6
A − 2bt f 12,500 − 2 • 192.8 • 19.6
=a = = 0.40 ≤ 0.5
A 12,500
1− n 1 − 0.5
M N= M pl , y , Rd = 499.1 •
1 − 0.5a 1 − 0.5 • 0.4
, y , Rd
M N , y , Rd = 310.8 kN-m

Section Bending & Compression Capacity
Formula NTC 4.2.39
2 5n
D  M y , Ed   M z , Ed   200 
2
M y , Ed
=  +
  =
  310.8  +
= 0 0.414 ≤ = 0.644
C  M N , y , Rd   M N , z , Rd  M N , y , Rd
D
= 0.644 (Governs)
C

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
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.

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

E = 210x103 MPa P = 1400 kN fy = 235 MPa
v = 0.3 Mz,top = 100 kN-m Section: 457x191x98 UB
G = 80769 MPa Mz,bot = -100 kN-m
My,top = 200 kN-m
My,bot = 0

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

 Section shear capacity for major & minor axes
 Section bending capacity for major & minor axes
 Member compression capacity for major & minor axes
 Interaction capacity, D/C, for major & minor axes
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file “SFD-NTC-2008.pdf,” which is

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Percent

2,797.6 2,797.6 0.00%
Nc,Rd (kN)
2,797.6 2,797.6 0.00%
Nbyy,Rd (kN)
2,797.6 2,797.6 0.00%
Nbzz,Rd (kN)
499.1 499.1 0.00%
Mc,y,Rd (kN-m)
84.8 84.8 0.00%
Mc,z,Rd (kN-m)
Section Bending Resistance Shear Reduced,
470.1 470.1 0.00%
MV,y,Rd (kN-m)
Section Bending Resistance Axially Reduced,
310.8 310.8 0.00%
MN,y,Rd (kN-m)
Section Bending Resistance Axially Reduced,
82.26 82.26 0.00%
MN,z,Rd (kN-m)
Member Bending Resistance,
499.095 499.095 0.00%
Mb,Rd (kN-m)
667.5 667.5 0.00%
Vc,y,Rd (kN)
984.7 984.7 0.00%
Vc,z,Rd (kN)
COMPUTER FILE: NTC 2008 EX002
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
E = 210,000 MPa
G = 80,769 MPa
fy = 235 MPa
A = 12,500 mm2
b = 192.8 mm, tf = 19.6 mm, h = 467.2 mm, tw = 11.4 mm, r = 0 mm
hw = h − 2t f = 467.2 − 2 • 19.6 = 428 mm
d = h − 2 ( t f + r ) = 467.2 − 2 • (19.6 + 0 ) = 428 mm
b − tw − 2r 192.8 − 11.4 − 2 • 0
=c = = 90.7 mm
2 2
Wpl,y = 2,230,000 mm3
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:
γM 0 =
1.05
γM1 =
1.05

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
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
235 235
=ε = = 1
fy 235
1 N Ed 
−1 ≤=
α 1 −  ≤ 1
2  2htw f y 
1 1, 400, 000 
=
α 1 − =  2.7818 > 1, so
2  2 • 467.2 • 11.4 • 235 
α =1.0

9ε 9 • 1
λ cl .1 = = = 9
α 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
c 90.7
λe = = = 4.63
t f 19.6
=
λ e 4.63 < λ=
cl .1 9

α > 0.5, so
396ε 396 • 1
13α − 1 13 • 1 − 1
cl .1
d 428
λe = = = 37.54
tw 11.4
=
λ e 37.54 > =
λ cl .1 33.00
456ε 456 • 1
λ= = = 38.00
13α − 1 13 • 1 − 1
cl .2
=
λ e 37.54 < λ
= cl .2 38.00

Af y 12,500 • 235
N= N pl= =
γM 0
c , Rd , Rd
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 )

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AV , y = 5,165.7 mm 2
fy 235
=
Vc , y , Rd = Avy • 5,165.7
γM 0 3 1.05 3
Vc , y , Rd = 667.5 kN
For minor z-z axis

AV , z =A − hwtw =12,500 − 428 • 11.4 =7, 620.8 mm 2
fy 235
=
Vc , z , Rd = Avy • 7, 620.8
γM 0 3 1.05 3
Vc , z , Rd = 984.7 kN
η =1.0
hw 428 72 235 72 235

== 37.5 < = =
72
tw 11.4 η fy 1.0 235
So no shear buckling needs to be checked.

For major y-y axis
W pl , y f y 2, 230, 000 • 235
=
M M= =
γM 0
c , y , Rd pl , y , Rd
1.05
M c , y , Rd = 499.1kN-m
For minor z-z axis

W pl , z f y 379, 000 • 235
=
M M= =
γM 0
c , z , Rd pl , z , Rd
1.05
M c , z , Rd = 84.8 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
With Shear Reduction

For major y-y axis
Vy ,=
Ed 500 kN > 0.5 • Vc , y ,=
Rd 333.7 kN Shear Reduction is needed
Av =htw =467.2 • 11.4 =4,879.2 mm 2
2
 2VEd   2 • 500 2
ρ
=  − 1=  − 1= 0.2482
V   667.5 
 c , Rd 
 ρAv 2   0.1525 • 4879.22 

W −
 pl , y 4t  yk f 2, 230, 000 −  • 235
 w   4 • 11.4 
=M y ,V , Rd = ≤ M y ,c , Rd
γM 0 1.05
M V ,r , Rd = 470.1kN-m
For minor z-z axis

Vz , Ed = 0 kN < 0.5 • Vc , z , Rd No shear Reduction is needed
With Compression Reduction
N Ed 1400
=n = = 0.50
N pl , Rd 2797.6
A − 2bt f 12,500 − 2 • 192.8 • 19.6
=a = = 0.40 ≤ 0.5
A 12,500
For major y-y axis

1− n 1 − 0.5
M N= M pl , y , Rd = 499.1 •
1 − 0.5a 1 − 0.5 • 0.4
, y , Rd
M N , y , Rd = 310.8 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
For minor z-z axis

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

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).

For buckling curve a, α =0.21 (NTC 2008, Table 4.2 VI)
K y = 1.00
Lcr , y 400
Lcr , y =
K y Ly =
1 • 400 =
400 mm, = =
2.091
ry 191.3
π2 E π2 • 210, 000
=N cr , y = = 5,925, 691kN
 K y Ly  12,500 • ( 2.091)
2 2
A
 ry 
 
Af y 12,500 • 235
=
λy = = 0.022
N cr , y 5,925, 691

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
( )
φ y 0.5 1 + α y λ y − 0.2 + λ=  0.5 1 + 0.21( 0.022 − 0.2 ) + 0.0222 
2
=   

y
φ y =0.482
1 1
=
Stress Reduction Factor: χ y = = 1.0388
φy + φy − λ y
2 2
0.482 + 0.482 2
− 0.0222
=
χ y 1.0388 > 1.0, so=
χ y 1.0
χ y Af y 1.0 • 12,500 • 235

N= =
γM1
byy , Rd
1.05
N byy , Rd = 2, 797.6 kN

For buckling curve b, α =0.34 (NTC 2008, Table 4.2 VI)
K z = 1.00
Lcr , z 400
Lcr , z =
K z Lz =
1 • 400 =
400 mm, = =
9.231
rz 43.33
π2 E π2 • 210, 000
=N cr , z = = 304, 052 kN
 K z Lz  12,500 • ( 9.231)
2 2
A 
 rz 
Af y 12,500 • 235
=
λz = = 0.098
N cr , z 304, 052
( )
φ z 0.5 1 + α z λ z − 0.2 + λ=  0.5 1 + 0.34 ( 0.098 − 0.2 ) + 0.0982 
2
=   

z
φ z =0.488
1 1
=
Stress Reduction Factor: χ z = = 1.0362
φz + φz − λ z
2 2
0.488 + 0.488 2
− 0.0982

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
=
χ z 1.0362 > 1.0, so=
χ z 1.0
χ z Af y 1.0 • 12,500 • 235

N= =
γM1
bzz , Rd
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).
α LT =
0.49
λ LT ,0 =(default
0.4 for rolled section)
β =0.75 (default for rolled section)
=
M B M=
y −2 0, = =
MA M y −1 200 kN-m
2
M 
2
M 0  0 
=
ψ 1.75 − 1.05 B + 0.3  B = 1.75 − 1.05 + 0.3  = 1.75
MA  MA  200  200 
Corrective Factor is determined from NTC 2008, Table 4.2 VIII

1 1
=kc = = 1.329
1.33 − 0.33ψ 1.33 − 0.33 • 1.75
π2 EI z  I w ( Lcr , z ) GIT 
2
M cr =
ψ + 
( cr , z )  z
 π2 EI z 
2
L I


PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
π2 • 210, 000 • 23, 469,998  1.176 • 1012 4002 • 80, 769 • 1, 210, 000 
M cr =
1.75 •  + 2 
4002  23, 469,998 π • 210, 000 • 23, 469,998 
M cr = 119, 477, 445,900 N-mm
W pl , y f y 2, 230, 000 • 235

=
λ LT = = 0.066
M cr 119, 477, 445,900
( )
φ LT 0.5 1 + α LT λ LT − λ LT ,0 + βλ=  0.5 1 + 0.49 • ( 0.066 − 0.4 ) + 0.75 • 0.0662 
2
=  
 
LT
φ LT =
0.420
( )
1 − 0.5 (1 − kc ) 1 − 2 λ LT − 0.8  = 1 − 0.5 (1 − 1.329 ) 1 − 2 ( 0.066 − 0.8 )  =
2 2
f = 0.987
   
1 1  1 1
=χ LT ≤ 1.0 or 2 
f φ LT + φ LT 2 + βλ LT 2  λ LT f 
 1  1  1 1 
χ LT   ≤ 1.0 or 
 0.987  0.420 + 0.4202 + 0.75 • 0.0662  0.066 0.987 
2
χ=
LT 1.2118 ≤ (1.0 or 230.9 )
so
χ LT =
1.0
fy 235
M b , Rd =
χ LT W pl , y =
1.0 • 2, 230, 000 •
γM1 1.05
M b , Rd = 499.095 kN-m

Section Bending & Compression Capacity

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Formula NTC 4.2.39

2 5n
D  M y , Ed   M z , Ed 
2 5•0.5
 200   100 
=   +  =
 310.8  +  82.3  =
0.414 + 1.630
C  M N , y , Rd   M N , z , Rd     
D
= 2.044 (Governs)
C
Member Bending & Compression Capacity: Method B

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
Formula NTC 4.2.37

D N Ed M y , Ed M z , Ed
= + k yy + k yz
C χ y Af yk W f W pl , z f yk
χ LT pl , y yk
γM1 γM1 γM1
D 1, 400 200 100

= + 0.547 × + 0.479 ×
C 1×12,500 × 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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Formula NTC 4.2.38

D N Ed M y , Ed M z , Ed
= + k zy + k zz
C χ z Af yk W f W pl , z f yk
χ LT pl , y yk
γM1 γM1 γM1
D 1, 400 200 100

= + 0.698 × + 0.798 ×
C 1×12,500 × 235 1×
2, 230, 000 × 235 379, 000 × 235
1.05 1.05 1.05
D
=0.5 + 0.28 + 0.941
C
D
= 1.721
C

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
NZS 3404-1997 Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m

E = 200x103 MPa N = 200 kN fy = 250 MPa
G = 76923.08 MPa

NZS 3404-1997 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file “SFD-NZS-3404-1997.pdf,” which is
Percent
Section Axial Capacity, Ns (kN) 6275 6275 0.00%
Member Axial Capacity, Nc (kN) 4385 4385 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: NZS 3404-1997 EX001
CONCLUSION
NZS 3404-1997 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
fy = 250 MPa
Section: 350WC197
Ag = An = 25100 mm2
r33 = 139.15 mm, r22 = 89.264 mm
Member:
le33 = le22 = 6000 mm (unbraced length)
Loadings:
N * = 200 kN
(b f − tw ) f y 350 − 20 250
=λe = = 5.89
2•tf 250 2 • 28 250
λ ep = 9, λ ey = 16, λ ew = 90
=
λ e 5.89 < λ=
Flange is compact
NZS 3404-1997 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
h fy 331 250
=λe = = 16.55
tw 250 20 250
Web is under uniform compression, so:
λ ep = 30, λ ey = 45, λ ew = 180
=
λ e 16.55 <=
Web is compact.
Section is Compact.

Section is not Slender, so Kf = 1.0
Ns =
K f An f y =
1 • 25,100 • 250 /103
N s = 6275kN
Member Weak-Axis Compression Capacity:

Frame is considered a braced frame in both directions, so k=
e 22 k=
e 33 1
le 22 6000 le 33 6000
= = 67.216 and
= = 43.119
r22 89.264 r33 139.15
Buckling will occur on the 22-axis.
λ=
le 22 K f fy
=
6000
•
(1 • 250=
) 67.216
n 22
r22 250 89.264 250
2100(λ n 22 − 13.5)
=α a 22 = 20.363
λ n 22 2 − 15.3λ n 22 + 2050
α b 22 =
0.5 since cross-section is not a UB or UC section
NZS 3404-1997 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
λ 22 = λ n 22 + α a 22 α b 22 = 67.216 + 20.363 • 0.5 = 77.398
=
η22 0.00326(λ 22 − 13.5)
= 0.2083 ≥ 0
 λ 22 
2 2
 77.398 
  + 1 + η22   + 1 + 0.2083
=ξ 22  90 
=  90 
= 1.317
 λ 22 
2 2
 77.398 
2  2 
 90   90 
   90  2  
α c 22 ξ 22 1 −
= 1 − 
   ξ 22 λ 22   
  
   2 
90  
α= 1.317 1 − 1 −  = 0.6988
c 22
   1.317 • 77.398   

N c 22 =
α c 22 N s ≤ N s
N c 22 = 0.6988 • 6275= 4385 kN
NZS 3404-1997 Example 001 - 5

REVISION NO.: 1
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.
Mx
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m

E = 200x103 MPa Mx = 1000 kN-m fy = 250 MPa
G = 76923.08 MPa

NZS 3404-1997 Example 002 - 1

REVISION NO.: 1
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file “SFD-NZS-3404-1997.pdf, ” which is
Percent
Compactness Compact Compact 0%

Section Bending Capacity,
837.5 837.5 0%
Ms,major (kN-m)
Member Bending Capacity, 837.5 837.5 0%
Mb (kN-m)
CONCLUSION
NZS 3404-1997 Example 002 - 2

REVISION NO.: 1
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
fy = 250 MPa
Section: 350WC197
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)
Loadings:
M m * = 1000 kN-m
This leads to:
M 2 * = 250 kN-m
M 3 * = 500 kN-m
M 4 * = 750 kN-m
(b f − tw ) f y 350 − 20 250
=λe = = 5.89
2•tf 250 2 • 28 250
NZS 3404-1997 Example 002 - 3

REVISION NO.: 1

λ ep = 9, λ ey = 16, λ ew = 90
=
λ e 5.89 < λ=
Flange is compact
h fy 331 250
=λe = = 16.55
tw 250 20 250
Web is under bending, so:
λ ep = 82, λ ey = 115, λ ew = 180
=
λ e 16.55 <=
Web is compact.
Section is Compact.

Z=
e Z=
c min( S ,1.5Z ) for compact sections
Z=
e 33 Z=
c 33 3,350, 000 mm 2
M=
s 33 = f y Z=
M s ,major e 33 250 • 3,350, 000 /10002
= =

kt = 1 (Program default)
kl = 1.4 (Program default)
kr = 1 (Program default)
lLTB = le22 = 6000 mm
NZS 3404-1997 Example 002 - 4

REVISION NO.: 1
le = kt kl kr lLTB = 1 • 1.4 • 1 • 6000 = 8400 mm 2
  π2 EI 22   π2 EI w  
M= =
M    GJ + 
le 2  
oa o 2
  le  
  π2 • 2 • 105 • 2 • 108  π2 • 2 • 105 • 4.59 • 1012  

M oa =
Mo =
   76,923.08 • 5, 750, 000 +  
 8, 4002  8, 4002 
M=
oa =
M o 1786.938 kN-m
  2
 M     
 Ms 
2
 s    837.5  837.5 
=α s 0.6   +=  −  + −
   M oa     1786.938   1786.938 
3 0.6 3
 M oa  
     
α s =0.7954
1.7 M m *
=αm ≤ 2.5
( M 2 *) + ( M 3 *) + ( M 4 *)
2 2 2
1.7 • 1000
α=
m = 1.817 ≤ 2.5
( 250 ) + ( 500 ) + ( 750 )
2 2 2
M b =α m α s M s =0.7954 • 1.817 • 837.5 ≤ M s
=M b 1210.64 kN-m ≤ 837.5 kN-m
NZS 3404-1997 Example 002 - 5

REVISION NO.: 0
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.
Mx
N
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m

E = 200x103 MPa N = 200 kN fy = 250 MPa
v = 0.3 Mx = 1000 kN-m Section: 350WC197
G = 76923.08 MPa
NZS 3404-1997 Example 003 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
 Section compactness check (compression & bending)

 Member in-plane bending capacity with compression reduction
 Member out-of-plane bending capacity with compression reduction
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file “SFD-NZS-3404-1997.pdf,” which is
Percent
Compactness` Compact Compact 0.00%

Reduced Section Bending Capacity,
837.5 837.5 0.00%
Mrx (kN-m)
Reduced In-Plane Member Bending
Capacity, 823.1 823.1 0.00%
Mix (kN-m)
Reduced Out-of-Plane Member 837.5 837.5 0.00%
Bending Capacity, Mo (kN-m)
CONCLUSION
NZS 3404-1997 Example 003 - 2

REVISION NO.: 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)
φ =0.9
Loadings:
N * = 200 kN
M m * = 1000 kN-m
From example SFD – IN-01-1, section is Compact in Compression
From example SFD – IN-01-2, section is Compact in Bending

From example SFD – IN-01-1, N s = 6275kN
NZS 3404-1997 Example 003 - 3

REVISION NO.: 0

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

From example SFD – IN-01-2,= =
Section Interaction: Bending & Compression Capacity:

 N*  200 
M r 33 =1.18M s 33 1 −  =1.18 • 837.5 1 −  ≤ M s 33 =837.5
 φN s   0.9 • 6275 
=
M r 33 953.252 ≤ 837.5
M r 33 = 837.5kN-m
Member Strong-Axis Compression Capacity:

Strong-axis buckling strength needs to be calculated:
Frame is considered a braced frame in both directions, so ke 33 = 1
le 33 6000
= = 43.119
r33 139.15
λ=
le 33 K f fy
=
6000
•
(1 • 250=
) 43.119
n 33
r33 250 139.15 250
2100(λ n 33 − 13.5)
=α a 33 = 19.141
λ n 332 − 15.3λ n 33 + 2050
α b 33 =
0.5 since cross-section is not a UB or UC section
λ 33 = λ n 33 + α a 33α b 33 = 43.119 + 19.141 • 0.5 = 52.690
=
η33 0.00326(λ 33 − 13.5)
= 0.1278 ≥ 0
NZS 3404-1997 Example 003 - 4

REVISION NO.: 0
 λ 33 
2 2
 52.690 
 90  + 1 + η33   + 1 + 0.1278
=ξ33  =   90 
= 2.145
 λ 33 
2 2
 52.690 
2  2 
 90   90 
   90  2  
α c 33 ξ33 1 −
= 1 − 
   ξ33λ 33   
  
   2 
1 − 90  
α
= 2.145 1 −  =  0.8474
c 33
   2.145 • 50.690  

N c 33 =
α c 33 N s ≤ N s
=
N c 33 0.8474 • 6275
N c 33 = 5318 kN
Member Interaction: In-Plane Bending & Compression Capacity:

M min 0
β=
m = = 0
M max 1000
Since the section is compact,
   1 + β 3   N*   1 + βm 
3
N* 
M i = M s 33  1 −  m
  1 −  + 1.18   1− 
   
   2    φN c 33   2  φN c 33 
   1 + 0 3   200   1+ 0 
3
200 
Mi =837.5  1 −     1 −  + 1.18   1− 
   2    0.9 • 5318   2  0.9 • 5318 
  
M i = 823.11 kN-m
NZS 3404-1997 Example 003 - 5

REVISION NO.: 0
Member Interaction: Out-of-Plane Bending & Compression Capacity:

1
α bc =
 1 − βm  1 − βm  
3
N * 
 +   0.4 − 0.23 
 2  2   φN c 22  
1
α bc =
 1− 0  1− 0  
3
200  
 +   0.4 − 0.23 
 2  2   0.9 • 4385  
α bc =4.120
π2 EI w π2 • 2 • 106 • 4.59 • 1012

2
lz 60002
N oz = GJ + = 76923.08 • 5.75 • 106 +
I 33 + I 22 ( 4.86 + 2 ) • 108
Ag 25100
=
N oz 4.423 • 1011 kN
M b 33o =α m α s M sx w/ an assumed uniform moment such that α m =1.0

M b 33o =1.0 • 0.7954 • 837.5 = 666.145 kN-m
 N *  N* 
M o 33 =
α bc M b 33o 1 −  1 −  ≤ M r 33
 φN c 22   φN oz 
 200  200 
M o 33 =4.12 • 666.145 1 − 1 − 11 
=
2674 ≤ 837.5
 0.9 • 4385  0.9 • 4.423 • 10 
M o 33 = 837.5 kN-m
NZS 3404-1997 Example 003 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
ACI 318-08 Example 001
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.
A 10"
CL
2.5" 13.5"
A
Section A-A
10' = 120"
Material Properties Section Properties Design Properties

E= 3600 k/in2 d = 13.5 in f’c = 4 k/in2
ν= 0.2 b = 10.0 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2 I = 3,413 in4

 Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As
 Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, As,min
 Calculation of Shear reinforcement, Av
 Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, Av,min
ACI 318-08 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
Percent
Design Moment, Mu (k-in) 1460.4 1460.4 0.00%
Tension Reinf, As (in2) 2.37 2.37 0.00%
Design Shear Force, Vu 37.73 37.73 0.00%
Shear Reinf, Av/s (in2/in) 0.041 0.041 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: ACI 318-08 Ex001
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match for the flexural and the shear
reinforcing.
ACI 318-08 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
ϕ = 0.9, Ag = 160 sq-in
200
As,min = bw d = 0.450 sq-in (Govern)
fy
3 f c'
= bw d = 0.427 sq-in
fy
 f c′ − 4000 
β1 =
0.85 − 0.05  =0.85
 1000 
0.003
=cmax = d 5.0625 in
0.003 + 0.005
amax = β1cmax = 4.303 in
Combo1
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 9.736 k/ft
Mu =
wu l 2
8
∙
= 9.736 102/8 = 121.7 k-ft = 1460.4 k-in
The depth of the compression block is given by:

2Mu
a = d − d2 − = 4.183 in (a < amax)
0.85 f c'ϕb
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is given by:
Mu 1460.4
As = =
 a 0.9 • 60 • (13.5 − 4.183 / 2 )
ϕ fy d − 
 2
As = 2.37 sq-in
ACI 318-08 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Shear Design
The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:
ϕ = 0.75
Check the limit of f c′ :
f c′ = 63.246 psi < 100 psi
The concrete shear capacity is given by:

ϕ Vc = ϕ2 f c′ bd = 12.807 k
The maximum shear that can be carried by reinforcement is given by:
ϕ Vs = ϕ8 f c′ bd = 51.229 k
The following limits are required in the determination of the reinforcement:

(ϕ Vc/2) = 6.4035 k
ϕ Vmax = ϕ Vc + ϕ 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 ≤ ϕ (Vc/2),
Av
= 0,
s
else if ϕ (Vc/2) < Vu ≤ ϕ Vmax
Av (V − φVc )  Av 
= u ≥ 
s φ f ys d  s  min
where:
 Av    b   bw  3 
  = max 50 
w
 ,   f c′ 
 s min   f yt   f yt  4 
else if Vu > ϕ Vmax,
a failure condition is declared.
ACI 318-08 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Combo1
∙
Vu = 9.736 (5-13.5/12) = 37.727 k
φ (Vc =
/ 2 ) 6.4035 k ≤=
Vu 37.727 k ≤ φ V
=max 64.036 k
 Av    10   10  3 
  = max 50   ,   4, 000 
 s  min   60, 000   60, 000  4 
 Av  in 2
=  =
max {0.0083, 0.0079} 0.0083
 s  min in
Av (Vu − φVc ) in 2 in 2
= = 0.041 = 0.492
s φ f ys d in ft
ACI 318-08 Example 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
Muy=332k-ft 22"
A A
2.5" 14"
10’
Section A-A
E= 3600 k/in2 b = 14 in f’c = 4 k/in2

ν= 0.2 d = 19.5 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2
ACI 318-08 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

 Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Demand/Capacity Ratio
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared.
Percent
Column Demand/Capacity Ratio 1.000 1.00 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.
ACI 318-08 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
COLUMN STRENGTH UNDER COMPRESSION CONTROL
f’c = 4 ksi fy = 60 ksi

b = 14 inch d = 19.5 inch
Pu = 398.4 kips 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:
87 87
cb = dt = (19.5) = 11.54 inch
87 + f y 87 + 60
2) From the equation of equilibrium:
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
Cc = 0.85 f c' ab = 0.85 • 4 • 14a = 47.6a
( )
Cs = As' f y - 0.85 f c' = 4 ( 60 - 0.85 • 4 ) = 226.4 kips
Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).
(
T = As f s = 4 f s f s < f y )
Pn = 47.6a + 226.4 - 4 f s (Eqn. 1)
3) Taking moments about As:
  a ' 
Pn =
1
(
Cc  d - 2  + Cs d - d  )
 
e'  
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 
ACI 318-08 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Pn = 50.17 a - 1.29a 2 + 208 (Eqn. 2)
4) Assume c = 13.45 inch, which exceed cb (11.54 inch).
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
5) Calculate fs from the strain diagram when c = 13.45 inch.
 19.5 -13.45 
fs =   87 = 39.13 ksi
 13.45 
εs = εt = 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 
ε s' =   ( 0.003) = 0.00244 > ε y = 0.00207 ksi
 13.45 
Compression steels yields, as assumed.
8) Calculate φ ,
dt = d = 19.5 inch, c = 13.45 inch
 19.45 -13.45 
ε t (at the tension reinforcement level) = 0.003   = 0.00135
 13.45 
Since ε t < 0.002 , then φ = 0.65
φ Pn = 0.65 ( 612.9 ) = 398.4 kips

φ M n = 0.65 ( 510.8 ) = 332 k-ft.
ACI 318-08 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

results.
A 10"
CL
2.5" 13.5"
A
Section A-A
10' = 120"

E= 3600 k/in2 d = 13.5 in f’c = 4 k/in2
ν= 0.2 b = 10.0 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2 I = 3,413 in4

ACI 318-11 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
CONCLUSION
reinforcing.
ACI 318-11 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
ϕ = 0.9, Ag = 160 sq-in
200
fy
3 f c'
= bw d = 0.427 sq-in
fy
 f c′ − 4000 
β1 =
0.85 − 0.05  =0.85
 1000 
0.003
=cmax = d 5.0625 in
0.003 + 0.005
Combo1
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 9.736 k/ft
Mu =
wu l 2
8
∙
= 9.736 102/8 = 121.7 k-ft = 1460.4 k-in

2Mu
a = d − d2 − = 4.183 in (a < amax)
0.85 f c'ϕb
Mu 1460.4
As = =
 a 0.9 • 60 • (13.5 − 4.183 / 2 )
ϕ fy d − 
 2
As = 2.37 sq-in
ACI 318-11 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Shear Design
ϕ = 0.75
f c′ = 63.246 psi < 100 psi

ϕ Vc = ϕ2 f c′ bd = 12.807 k
ϕ Vs = ϕ8 f c′ bd = 51.229 k

(ϕ Vc/2) = 6.4035 k
(ϕ Vc + ϕ 50 bd) = 11.466 k
ϕ Vmax = ϕ Vc + ϕ Vs = 64.036 k
Av
= 0,
s
= u ≥ 
where:
 Av    b   bw  3 
  = max 50 
w
 ,   f c′ 
 s min   f yt   f yt  4 
ACI 318-11 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Combo1
∙
Vu = 9.736 (5-13.5/12) = 37.727 k
φ (Vc =
/ 2 ) 6.4035 k ≤=
Vu 37.727 k ≤ φ V
=max 64.036 k
 Av    10   10  3 
  = max 50   ,   4, 000 
 s  min   60, 000   60, 000  4 
 Av  in 2
=  =
max {0.0083, 0.0079} 0.0083
 s  min in
= = 0.041 = 0.492
s φ f ys d in ft
ACI 318-11 Example 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.


Pu=398.4 kips
Muy=332k-ft 22"
A A
2.5" 14"
10’
Section A-A
E= 3600 k/in2 b = 14 in f’c = 4 k/in2

ν= 0.2 d = 19.5 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2
ACI 318-11 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
CONCLUSION
ACI 318-11 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

Pu = 398.4 kips Mu = 332 k-ft
checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis fro a balanced condition, cb:
87 87
cb = 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
( )
Cs = As' f y - 0.85 f c' = 4 ( 60 - 0.85 • 4 ) = 226.4 kips
(
T = As f s = 4 f s f s < f y )
Pn = 47.6a + 226.4 - 4 f s (Eqn. 1)
  a ' 
Pn =
1
(
Cc  d - 2  + Cs d - d  )
 
e'  
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 
ACI 318-11 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Pn = 50.17 a - 1.29a 2 + 208 (Eqn. 2)
a = 0.85 • 13.45 = 11.43 inch
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 
εs = εt = f s Es = 0.00135

Pn2 = 47.6 (11.43) + 226.4 - 4 ( 39.13) = 613.9 kips
 10 
M n = Pn e = 612.9   = 510.8 kips-ft
 12 

 13.45 - 2.5 
ε s' =   ( 0.003) = 0.00244 > ε y = 0.00207 ksi
 13.45 
8) Calculate φ ,
dt = d = 19.5 inch, c = 13.45 inch
 19.45 -13.45 
 13.45 
Since ε t < 0.002 , then φ = 0.65
φ Pn = 0.65 ( 612.9 ) = 398.4 kips

φ M n = 0.65 ( 510.8 ) = 332 k-ft.
ACI 318-11 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

results.
A 10"
CL
2.5" 13.5"
A
Section A-A
10' = 120"

E= 3600 k/in2 d = 13.5 in f’c = 4 k/in2
ν= 0.2 b = 10.0 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2 I = 3,413 in4

ACI 318-14 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
CONCLUSION
reinforcing.
ACI 318-14 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
ϕ = 0.9, Ag = 160 sq-in
200
fy
3 f c'
= bw d = 0.427 sq-in
fy
 f c′ − 4000 
β1 =
0.85 − 0.05  =0.85
 1000 
0.003
=cmax = d 5.0625 in
0.003 + 0.005
Combo1
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 9.736 k/ft
Mu =
wu l 2
8
∙
= 9.736 102/8 = 121.7 k-ft = 1460.4 k-in

2Mu
a = d − d2 − = 4.183 in (a < amax)
0.85 f c'ϕb
Mu 1460.4
As = =
 a 0.9 • 60 • (13.5 − 4.183 / 2 )
ϕ fy d − 
 2
As = 2.37 sq-in
ACI 318-14 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Shear Design
ϕ = 0.75
f c′ = 63.246 psi < 100 psi

ϕ Vc = ϕ2 f c′ bd = 12.807 k
ϕ Vs = ϕ8 f c′ bd = 51.229 k

(ϕ Vc/2) = 6.4035 k
(ϕ Vc + ϕ 50 bd) = 11.466 k
ϕ Vmax = ϕ Vc + ϕ Vs = 64.036 k
Av
= 0,
s
= u ≥ 
where:
 Av    b   bw  3 
  = max 50 
w
 ,   f c′ 
 s min   f yt   f yt  4 
ACI 318-14 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Combo1
∙
Vu = 9.736 (5-13.5/12) = 37.727 k
φ (Vc =
/ 2 ) 6.4035 k ≤=
Vu 37.727 k ≤ φ V
=max 64.036 k
 Av    10   10  3 
  = max 50   ,   4, 000 
 s  min   60, 000   60, 000  4 
 Av  in 2
=  =
max {0.0083, 0.0079} 0.0083
 s  min in
= = 0.041 = 0.492
s φ f ys d in ft
ACI 318-14 Example 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.


Pu=398.4 kips
Muy=332k-ft 22"
A A
2.5" 14"
10’
Section A-A
E= 3600 k/in2 b = 14 in f’c = 4 k/in2

ν= 0.2 d = 19.5 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2
ACI 318-14 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
CONCLUSION
ACI 318-14 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

Pu = 398.4 kips Mu = 332 k-ft
checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis fro a balanced condition, cb:
87 87
cb = 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
( )
Cs = As' f y - 0.85 f c' = 4 ( 60 - 0.85 • 4 ) = 226.4 kips
(
T = As f s = 4 f s f s < f y )
Pn = 47.6a + 226.4 - 4 f s (Eqn. 1)
  a ' 
Pn =
1
(
Cc  d - 2  + Cs d - d  )
 
e'  
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 
ACI 318-14 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Pn = 50.17 a - 1.29a 2 + 208 (Eqn. 2)
a = 0.85 • 13.45 = 11.43 inch
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 
εs = εt = f s Es = 0.00135

Pn2 = 47.6 (11.43) + 226.4 - 4 ( 39.13) = 613.9 kips
 10 
M n = Pn e = 612.9   = 510.8 kips-ft
 12 

 13.45 - 2.5 
ε s' =   ( 0.003) = 0.00244 > ε y = 0.00207 ksi
 13.45 
8) Calculate φ ,
dt = d = 19.5 inch, c = 13.45 inch
 19.45 -13.45 
 13.45 
Since ε t < 0.002 , then φ = 0.65
φ Pn = 0.65 ( 612.9 ) = 398.4 kips

φ M n = 0.65 ( 510.8 ) = 332 k-ft.
ACI 318-14 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AS 3600-2009 Example 001

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.
A simple-span, 6-m-long, 300-mm-wide, and 500-mm-deep T-beam with a

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.
AS 3600-2009 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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, L = 6000 mm
Overall depth, h = 500 mm
Flange thickness, Ds = 100 mm
Width of web, bw = 300 mm
Width of flange, bf = 600 mm
Depth of tensile reinf., dsc = 75 mm
AS 3600-2009 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Effective depth, d = 425 mm

Depth of comp. reinf., d' = 75 mm
Concrete strength, f’c = 30 MPa

Yield strength of steel, fy = 460 MPa
Concrete unit weight, wc = 0 kN/m3
Modulus of elasticity, Ec = 25x105 MPa
Modulus of elasticity, Es = 2x108 MPa
Poisson’s ratio, v = 0.2
Dead load, Pd = 30 kN
Live load, Pl = 130 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
A +s ,min = 3.00 sq-cm
AS 3600-2009 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Table 2 Comparison of Shear Reinforcements
Av
Reinforcement Area,
s
(sq-cm/m)
Shear Force (kN) ETABS Calculated
231 12.05 12.05
CONCLUSION
reinforcing.
AS 3600-2009 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
φ = 0.8 for bending
0.67 ≤ α 2 ≤ 0.85, where α 2 = 1.0 − 0.003 f c ' = 0.91 , use α 2 = 0.85
0.67 ≤ γ ≤ 0.85, where α 2= 1.05 − 0.007 f c =' 0.84 , use γ = 0.84

ku ≤ 0.36
amax γ=
= ku d 0.840.36=
425 128.52 mm
 D  f ′ct , f
2
Ast .min = α b   bw d
 d  f sy
where for L- and T-Sections with the web in tension:
D= h= 500 mm
1/4
 bf  D   bf 
α b = 0.20 +  − 1  0.4 s − 0.18  ≥ 0.20   = 0.2378
 bw  D   bw 
= =
f 'ct , f 0.5 =
f 'c 0.5 30 3.3 MPa
= f=
f sy y 460 MPa ≤ 500 MPa
 D  f ′ct , f
2
Ast .min = 0.2378   bd
 d  f sy
= 0.2378 • (500/425)2 •3.3/460 • 300•425
= 299.9 mm2
COMB130
V* = (1.2Pd + 1.5Pl) = 231kN
V *L
M* = = 462 kN-m
3
AS 3600-2009 Example 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
2M *
a =−
d d2 − = 100.755 mm (a > Ds), so design as a T-beam.
α 2 f 'c φ 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:
α 2 f c′ ( b f − bw )min ( Ds , amax ) =
Cf = 765 kN
Therefore,
C f 765
A=
s1 = = 1663.043 mm 2
f sy 460
and the portion of M* that is resisted by the flange is given by:
 min ( Ds , amax ) 
Muf =
φC f  d −  = 229.5 kN-m
 2 
Again, the value for φ is 0.80 by default. Therefore, the balance of the
moment, M* to be carried by the web is:
M=
uw M * − Muf = 462 – 229.5 = 232.5
The web is a rectangular section of dimensions bw and d, for which the design
depth of the compression block is recalculated as:
2 M uw
a1 =−
d d2 − = 101.5118 mm
α 2 f ′c φ bw
a1 ≤ amax , so no compression reinforcement is needed, and the area of tension

reinforcement is then given by:
M uw
As 2 = = 1688.186 mm2
 a 
φ f sy  d − 1 
 2
Ast = As1 + As 2 = 3351.23 sq-mm = 33.512 sq-cm
AS 3600-2009 Example 001 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Shear Design
φ = 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 = β1β2β3bv d o f cv′  st  = 0 kN
 bv d o 
where,
f cv′ = ( f c′) = 3.107 N/mm2 ≤ 4MPa

1/3
 d 
=
β1 1.11.6 − o  ≥ 1.1 =1.2925,
 1000 
β2 = 1 since no significant axial load is present
β3 = 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 + 0.6bw d o =
0 + 0.6300425 =
77 kN
=
V * 231 kN > φV=
uc / 2 0 , so reinforcement is needed.
=
V * 231 kN ≤ φV=
u .max 535.5 kN , so concrete crushing does not occur.
 Asv   bw f 'c bv  mm 2
=  =
max 0.35 , 0.06  max {228.26, 214.33}
 s min  f sy f sy  m
 Asv 
2
mm
  = 228.26
 s  min m
AS 3600-2009 Example 001 - 7

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
COMB130
Since φV
=u .min 53.55 kN=
< V * 231 kN ≤ φV=
u .max 535.5 kN
=
Asv (
V * − φVuc A  )
≥  sv 
s φf sy d o cot θv  s  min
θv = 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*=φVu,min to 45 degrees when V*=φVu,max = 35.52
degrees
θv = 35.52 degrees
Asv
=
( 213 − 0 ) =
mm 2  Asv
≥

=
mm 2
1205.04  228.26
s (
0.7460425cot 35.52o ) m  s min m
Asv cm 2
= 12.05
s m
AS 3600-2009 Example 001 - 8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
AS 3600-2009 Example 002

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

1733 kN
My= 433 kN-m

550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m fcu = 30 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2
AS 3600-2009 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2

 Tied reinforced concrete column design
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent
results.
AS 3600-2009 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
HAND CALCULATION

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:
600 600
cb = dt = ( 490 ) = 277.4 mm
600 + f y 600 + 460

N = Cc + C s − T
where
= Cc α= ′
2 fc ab 0.85 • 30 •=
350a 8925a
Cs = As ( f y − α 2 fc′) = 2500 ( 460 − 0.85 • 30 ) = 1, 086, 250 N
Assume compression steel yields, (this assumption will be checked later).
T = As f = 2500 f s = 2500 f s ( f s < f y )
N1 =
8925a + 1.086, 250 − 2500 fs (Eqn. 1)

1  a 
=
N2 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
1   a 
=N 8925a  490 −  + 1, 086, 250 ( 490 − 60 ) 
465   2 
N = 9404.8a − 9.597 a 2 + 1, 004, 489 (Eqn. 2)
AS 3600-2009 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
4) Assume c = 333.9 mm, which exceeds cb (296 mm).

= =
a 0.84 • 333.9 280.5 mm
N 2 = 8925 • 280.5 − 9.597 ( 280.5 ) + 1, 004, 489= 2,888, 240 N

2
5) Calculate fs from the strain diagram when c = 365 mm.

 490 − 333.9 
=fs =  600 280.5 MPa
 333.9 
ε s =εt =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
M = 2888  =  722 kN-m
 1000 
7) Check if compression steel yields. From strain diagram,

 333.9 − 60 
=ε′s   ( 0.003
= ) 0.0025=
> ε y 0.0023
 333.9 
Compression steel yields, as assumed.
8) Therefore, section capacity is

N = φ • 2888 =
1733 kN
e 250
M = φ • 2888 • = 0.60 • 2888 • = 433 kN-m
1000 1000
AS 3600-2009 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
BS 8110-1997 Example 001
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.

230mm
CL A
60 mm 550 mm
A
Section A-A
6m

E= 25x106 kN/m2 d = 490 mm fcu = 30 MPa
ν= 0.2 W = 36.67 kN/m fy = 460 MPa
G= 10416666.7kN/m2

BS 8110-1997 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
distribution described in Example 7.2 on page 149 of Reinforced Concrete
Design by W. H. Mosley, J. H. Bungey & R. Hulse.
Percent
Design Moment, Mu (kN-m) 165.02 165.02 0.00%
Tension Reinf, As (mm2) 964.1 964.1 0.00%
Design Shear, Vu (kN) 92.04 92.04 0.00%
Shear Reinf, Asv/sv (mm2/mm) 0.231 0.231 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: BS 8110-1997 Ex001
CONCLUSION
BS 8110-1997 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
γm, steel = 1.15
= =
As ,min 0.0013bw h 0.0013=
230550 164.45 mm 2
Design Combo COMB1

wu = =36.67 kN/m
wu l 2
Mu = = 165 kN-m
8
M
K= = 0.0996 < 0.156
f cu b d 2
If K ≤ 0.156 (BS 3.4.4.4), the beam is designed as a singly reinforced concrete
beam.
Then the moment arm is computed as:
 K 
z = d 0.5 + 0.25 −  ≤ 0.95d = 427.90 mm
 0 . 9 
The ultimate resistance moment is given by:
M
As = = 964.1 sq-mm
( f y 1.15) z
BS 8110-1997 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Shear Design
 L2 
V=
U ωU  − d= 92.04 kN at distance, d, from support
 2 
VU
v= = 0.8167 MPa
bd
vmax = min(0.8 fcu , 5 MPa) = 4.38178 MPa
v ≤ vmax , so no concrete crushing

The shear stress carried by the concrete, vc, is calculated as:
1 1
0.79k1k 2  100 As  3  400  4
vc =     = 0.415 MPa
γ m  bd   d 
k1 is the enhancement factor for support compression,
and is conservatively taken as 1 .
1 1
f  3  40  3
k2 =  cu  = 1.06266, 1 ≤ k2 ≤  
 25   25 
γm, concrete = 1.25
100 As
0.15 ≤ ≤3
bd
100 As 100266
= = 0.2359
bd 230490
1 1
 400  4  400  4
 =
 0.95 ≥ 1, so   is taken as 1.
 d   d 
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
BS 8110-1997 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
=
Asv (=
v − vc ) bw ( 0.8167 − 0.4150 )
= 0.231 sq-mm/mm
sv 0.87 f yv 0.87 • 460
BS 8110-1997 Example 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
BS 8110-1997 Example 002

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

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.

1971 kN
My= 493 kN-m

550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m fcu = 30 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2

BS 8110-1997 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
CONCLUSION
The computed result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent
result.
BS 8110-1997 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Column Strength under compression control

b = 350 mm d = 490 mm
700 700
=cb = dt = ( 490 ) 312 mm
700 + f y / γ s 700 + 460 /1.15

N = Cc + C s − T
where
0.67
=Cc = fcu ab 0.67 1.5 •=30 • 350a 4667 a
γΜ
As′
Cs =
γs
( f y − 0.4467 fcu ) = ( 460 − 0.4467 • 30 ) =
2500
1.15
971, 014 N
Assume compression steel yields (this assumption will be checked later).
= 2174 fs ( fs < f y )
As fs 2500 fs
= T =
γs 1.15
N1 =4, 667 a + 971, 014 − 2174 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, 667 a  490 −  + 971, 014 ( 490 − 60 ) 
465   2 
N = 4917.9a − 5.018a 2 + 897,926 (Eqn. 2)
BS 8110-1997 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
4) Assume c = 364 mm, which exceed cb (296 mm).
= =
a 0.9 • 364 327.6 mm
N 2 4917.9 • 327.6 − 5.018 ( 327.6 ) + 897,926
2
= = 1,970,500 N
 490 − 364 
=fs =  700 242.3 MPa
 364 
ε=
s ε=
t fs Es = 0.0012
N1 4, 667 ( 327.6 ) + 971, 014 − 2174 ( 242.3

= = ) 1,973,163 N
 250 
M = Ne = 1971  = 493 kN-m
 1000 
 365 − 60 
=ε′s   ( 0.0035
= ) 0.00292
= > ε y 0.0023
 365 
8) Therefore, the section capacity is
N = 1971 kN
M = 493 kN-m
BS 8110-1997 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CSA A23.3-04 Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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
results.

400mm
CL A
54 mm 600 mm
A
Section A-A
6m

E= 25x106 kN/m2 d = 546 mm f’c = 40 MPa
ν= 0.2 W = 92.222 kN/m fy = 400 MPa
G= 10416666.7kN/m2

CSA A23.3-04 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
distribution described in Example 2.2 on page 2-12 in Part II on Concrete Design
Handbook of Cement Association of Canada.
Percent
Tension Reinf, As (mm2) 2466 2466 0.00%
Design Shear, Vf (kN) 226.31 226.31 0.00%
Shear Reinf, Av/s (mm2/mm) 0.379 0.379 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-04 Ex001
CONCLUSION
CSA A23.3-04 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
φc = 0.65 for concrete

φs = 0.85 for reinforcement
0.2 f ′c
As,min = b h = 758.95 mm2
fy
α1 = 0.85 – 0.0015f'c ≥ 0.67 = 0.79
β1 = 0.97 – 0.0025f'c ≥ 0.67 = 0.87
700
cb = d = 347.45 mm
700 + f y
ab = β1cb = 302.285 mm
COMB1
wu l 2
Mf = = 415 kN-m
8
2M f
a = d − d2 − = 102.048 mm
α 1 f 'c φc b
If a ≤ ab, the area of tension reinforcement is then given by:
Mf
As = = 2466 mm2
 a
φs f y  d − 
 2
CSA A23.3-04 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 4   4 
= =
As ,min min =
 As ,min ,   As ,required  min 758.95,   2466  758.95 mm
2
 3   3 
Shear Design
The basic shear strength for rectangular section is computed as,
φc = 0.65 for shear
λ = {1.00, for normal density concrete
d v is the effective shear depth. It is taken as the greater of

0.72h = 432 mm or 0.9d = 491.4 mm (governing).
β = 0.18 since minimum transverse reinforcement is provided
∙
V f = 92.222 (3 - 0.546) = 226.31 kN
Vc = φc λβ f ′c bw dv = 145.45 kN
Vr ,max = 0.25φc f 'c bw d = 1419.60 kN
θ = 35º since f y ≤ 400 MPa and f 'c ≤ 60 MPa
Av (V f − Vc ) tan θ
= = 0.339 mm2/mm
s φ s f yt d v
 Av 
'
fc
  = 0.06 b = 0.379 mm2/mm (Govern)
 s  min fy
CSA A23.3-04 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

2098 kN
My= 525 kN-m

550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m f’c = 30 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2

 Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Design
CSA A23.3-04 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Column Demand/Capacity Ratio 0.9869 1.00 -1.31%
CONCLUSION
results.
CSA A23.3-04 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
HAND CALCULATION

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 fro a balanced condition, cb:
700 700
cb = dt = ( 490) = 296 mm
700 + f y 700 + 460
Pr = Cc + Cs − T
where
Cc = φc • α1 f c' ab = 0.65 • 0.805 • 30 • 350a = 5494.1a
( )
Cs = φs As' f y - 0.805 f c' = 0.85 • 2500 ( 460 - 0.805 • 30 ) = 926,181 N
2125 f s ( f s < f y )
T = φs As f s = 0.85 • 2500 f s =
Pr = 5, 494.1a + 926,181 - 2125 f s (Eqn. 1)
  a ' 
Pr =
1
( )
 Cc  d - 2  + C s d - d 
 
e'  
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 (Eqn. 2)
CSA A23.3-04 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
a = 0.895 • 355 = 317.7 mm
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 
εs = εt = 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 

 355 - 60 
ε s' =   ( 0.0035) = 0.00291 > ε y = 0.0023
 355 
Pr = 2098 kN
M r = 525 kN-m
CSA A23.3-04 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

of 92.222 kN/m. This example is tested using the CSA A23.3-14 concrete design
results.

400mm
CL A
54 mm 600 mm
A
Section A-A
6m

E= 25x106 kN/m2 d = 546 mm f’c = 40 MPa
ν= 0.2 W = 92.222 kN/m fy = 400 MPa
G= 10416666.7kN/m2

CSA A23.3-14 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
distribution described in Example 2.2 on page 2-12 in Part II on Concrete Design
Handbook of Cement Association of Canada.
Percent
Design Shear, Vf (kN) 226.31 226.31 0.00%
Shear Reinf, Av/s (mm2/mm) 0.379 0.379 0.00%
CONCLUSION
CSA A23.3-14 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
φc = 0.65 for concrete

φs = 0.85 for reinforcement
0.2 f ′c
As,min = b h = 758.95 mm2
fy
α1 = 0.85 – 0.0015f'c ≥ 0.67 = 0.79
β1 = 0.97 – 0.0025f'c ≥ 0.67 = 0.87
700
cb = d = 347.45 mm
700 + f y
ab = β1cb = 302.285 mm
COMB1
wu l 2
Mf = = 415 kN-m
8
2M f
a = d − d2 − = 102.048 mm
α 1 f 'c φc b
If a ≤ ab, the area of tension reinforcement is then given by:
Mf
As = = 2466 mm2
 a
φs f y  d − 
 2
CSA A23.3-14 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 4   4 
= =
As ,min min =
 As ,min ,   As ,required  min 758.95,   2466  758.95 mm
2
 3   3 
Shear Design
The basic shear strength for rectangular section is computed as,
φc = 0.65 for shear
λ = {1.00, for normal density concrete
d v is the effective shear depth. It is taken as the greater of

0.72h = 432 mm or 0.9d = 491.4 mm (governing).
β = 0.18 since minimum transverse reinforcement is provided
∙
V f = 92.222 (3 - 0.546) = 226.31 kN
Vc = φc λβ f ′c bw dv = 145.45 kN
Vr ,max = 0.25φc f 'c bw d = 1419.60 kN
θ = 35º since f y ≤ 400 MPa and f 'c ≤ 60 MPa
Av (V f − Vc ) tan θ
= = 0.339 mm2/mm
s φ s f yt d v
 Av 
'
fc
  = 0.06 b = 0.379 mm2/mm (Govern)
 s  min fy
CSA A23.3-14 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are
compared. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

2098 kN
My= 525 kN-m

550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m f’c = 30 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2

CSA A23.3-14 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
CONCLUSION
results.
CSA A23.3-14 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

b = 350 mm d = 490 mm
700 700
cb = dt = ( 490) = 296 mm
700 + f y 700 + 460
Pr = Cc + Cs − T
where
Cc = φc • α1 f c' ab = 0.65 • 0.805 • 30 • 350a = 5494.1a
( )
Cs = φs As' f y - 0.805 f c' = 0.85 • 2500 ( 460 - 0.805 • 30 ) = 926,181 N
2125 f s ( f s < f y )
T = φs As f s = 0.85 • 2500 f s =
Pr = 5, 494.1a + 926,181 - 2125 f s (Eqn. 1)
  a ' 
Pr =
1
( )
 Cc  d - 2  + C s d - d 
 
e'  
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 (Eqn. 2)
CSA A23.3-14 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
a = 0.895 • 355 = 317.7 mm
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 
εs = εt = 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
 250 
M r = Pr e = 2100   = 525 kN-m
 1000 

 355 - 60 
ε s' =   ( 0.0035) = 0.00291 > ε y = 0.0023
 355 
Pr = 2098 kN
M r = 525 kN-m
CSA A23.3-14 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

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.

230mm
CL A
60 mm 550 mm
A
Section A-A
6m

E= 25x106 kN/m2 d = 490 mm fck = 30 MPa
ν= 0.2 b = 230 mm fyk = 460 MPa
G= 10416666.7kN/m2

EN 2-2004 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
RESULTS COMPARISON
distribution.
Country γc γs α cc k1 k2 k3 k4
CEN Default, Slovenia, Sweden, Portugal 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
EN 2-2004 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
Design Design Shear, Shear

Tension
Moment, VEd Reinforcing,
Country Reinforcing, % diff.
Asw/s (sq-
MEd (kN-m) As+ (sq-mm) (kN) mm/m)
Method ETABS Hand ETABS Hand ETABS Hand ETABS Hand 0.00%
CEN Default, 165 165 916 916 110 110 249.5 249.5 0.00%
Slovenia,
Sweden, Portugal
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%
COMPUTER FILE: EN 2-2004 Ex001
CONCLUSION
EN 2-2004 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for both of the load combinations:
γm, steel = 1.15
α cc = 1.0
k1 = 0.44 k2 = 1.25 ( 0.6 + 0.0014 / ε cu 2 ) =
k4 = 1.25 k3 = 0.54
f cd = α cc f ck / γ c = 1.0(30)/1.5 = 20 MPa
=
f yd f yk / γ s = 460/1.15 = 400 Mpa
f=
ywd f yk / γ s = 460/1.15 = 400 Mpa
η = 1.0 for fck ≤ 50 MPa

λ = 0.8 for fck ≤ 50 MPa
f ctm
As ,min = 0.26 bd = 184.5 sq-mm,
f yk
where f ctm = 0.3 f cwk

2/3
= 0.3(30)2/3 = 2.896 N/sq-mm
As,min = 0.0013bh = 164.5 sq-mm
COMB1
The factored design load and moment are given as,

wu = 36.67 kN/m
M =
wu l 2
8
∙
= 36.67 62/8 = 165.0 kN-m
EN 2-2004 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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,
x δ − k1
  = for fck ≤ 50 MPa ,
 d  lim k2
where δ = 1 , assuming no moment redistribution
x δ − k1 (1 − 0.44 )
=  = = 0.448
 d lim k2 1.25
The normalized section capacity as a singly reinforced beam is given as,
x  λx 
mlim = λ   1 −    = 0.29417
 d  lim  2  d  lim 
The limiting normalized steel ratio is given as,

x
ωlim = λ   = 1 − 1 − 2mlim = 0.3584
 d  lim
The normalized moment, m, is given as,

M 165 • 106
m= 2 = =0.1494 < mlim so a singly reinforced
bd η f cd 230 • 4902 • 1.0 • 20
beam will be adequate.
ω = 1 − 1 − 2m = 0.16263 < ωlim

η f bd  1.0 • 20 • 230 • 490 
As = ω  cd  = 0.1626   =916 sq-mm
 f yd   400
Shear Design
The shear force demand is given as,
VEd ω=
= L / 2 110.01 kN
The shear force that can be carried without requiring design shear reinforcement,
EN 2-2004 Example 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
=VRd ,c CRd ,c k (100 ρ1 f ck ) + k1σ cp  bw d

1/3
 
VRd ,c= 0.12 • 1.6389 (100 • 0.0 • 30 ) + 0.0  230 • 490= 0 kN

1/3
 
with a minimum of:
V=
Rd , c
vmin + k1σ cp  bd = [ 0.4022 + 0.0] 230 • 490 =
45.3 kN
where,
200
k=
1+ ≤ 2.0 = 1.6389
d
AS 0
ρ1
= = = 0.0 ≤ 0.02
bd 230490
As = 0 for ρl at the end of a simply-supported beam as it taken as the tensile
reinforcement at the location offset by d+ldb beyond the point considered.
(EN 1992-1-1:2004 6.2.2(1) Figure 6.3)
N Ed
σ cp
= = 0.0
Ac
CRd ,c = 0.18 / γ c =0.12
= =
vmin 0.035k 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 α cwbzv1 f cd / ( cot θ + tan θ )
where,
α cw = 1.0
= =
z 0.9 d 441.0 mm
 f 
v1 = 0.6 1 − ck  = 0.528
 250 
EN 2-2004 Example 001 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
vEd
=θ 0.5sin
= −1
5.33
0.2 f ck (1 − f ck / 250 )
where,
VEd
=
vEd = 0.9761
bw d
21.8 ≤ θ ≤ 45 , therefore use θ = 21.8
VRd ,max α cwbzv1 f cd / ( cot θ

= = + tan θ ) 369 kN
VRd ,max > VEd , so there is no concrete crushing.

The required shear reinforcing is,
Asw VEd 110.01 • 1e6
= = = 249.5 sq-mm/m
s zf ywd cot θ 441 • 460 • 2.5
1.15
EN 2-2004 Example 001 - 7

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

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.

2374 kN
My= 593 kN-m
550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m fck = 30 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2

➢ Tied reinforced concrete column design
EN 2-2004 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
CONCLUSION
results.
EN 2-2004 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1
HAND CALCULATION

fck = 30 MPa fy = 460 MPa
b = 350 mm d = 490 mm
700 700
cb = dt =  490  = 312 mm
700 + f y / s 700 + 460 / 1.15

N  Cc  Cs  T
where
f 30
Cc  cc ck ab  1.0 • 350a  7000a
c 1.5
As  fck  2500  30 
Cs   f y  cc   460  1.0 •   956,521.7 N
s   c  1.15  1.5 
As fs 2500 fs
T   2174 fs  fs  f y 
s 1.15
N1  7,000a  956,521.7  2174 fs (Eqn. 1)

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   7, 000a  490    956,521.7  490  60 
465   2 
N2 = 7376.3a -7.527a 2 + 884,525.5 (Eqn. 2)
EN 2-2004 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 1

a  0.8•356  284.8 mm
N2  7376.3• 284.8  7.527  284.8  884,525.5  2,374,173 N
2

 490  356 
fs    700  263.4 MPa
 356 
s  t  fs Es = 0.00114

N1  7,000  284.8  956,522  2174  263.5  2,377, 273 N
 250 
M  Ne  2374    593.5 kN-m
 1000 

 356  60 
s     0.0035  0.0029   y  0.0023
 356 

N = 2,374 kN
M = 593 kN-m
EN 2-2004 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HK CP-2013 Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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 2013 concrete design code. The flexural
and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent results.

230mm
CL A
60 mm 550 mm
A
Section A-A
6m

E= 25x106 kN/m2 d = 490 mm fcu = 30 MPa
ν= 0.2 w = 36.67 kN/m fy = 460 MPa
G= 10416666.7kN/m2

 Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, A s
 Enforcement of Minimum tension reinforcement, A s,min
 Calculation of Shear reinforcement, A v
 Enforcement of Minimum shear reinforcing, A v,min
HK CP-2013 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CONCLUSION
distribution based on section 6.1 of Hong Kong Code of Practice for Structural Use
of Concrete 2013.
Percent
Design Moment, M (kN-m) 165.02 165.02 0.00%
Tension Reinf, A s (mm2) 964 964 0.00%
Design Shear, V (kN) 92.04 92.04 0.00%
Shear Reinf, A v /s (mm2/mm) 0.231 0.231 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: HK CP-2013 Ex001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
γ m, steel = 1.15
As ,min = 0.0013bh
= 164.5 sq-mm
Design Combo COMB1

w u = =36.67 kN/m
wu l 2
Mu = = 165 kN-m
8
M
K= = 0.0996 < 0.156
f cu b d 2
beam.
 K 
z = d 0.5 + 0.25 −  ≤ 0.95d = 427.900 mm
 0.9 

M
As = = 964 sq-mm
( f y 1.15) z

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Shear Design
V u = =92.04 kN at a distance, d, from support
V
v= = 0.8167 MPa
bd
v max = min(0.8 fcu , 7 MPa) = 4.38178 MPa

The shear stress carried by the concrete, v c , is calculated as:
1 1
0.79k1k 2  100 As  3  400  4
vc =     = 0.4150 MPa
γ m  bd   d 
k 1 is the enhancement factor for support compression,
1 1
f  3  40  3
k 2 =  cu  = 1.06266, 1 ≤ k 2 ≤  
 25   25 
γ m, concrete = 1.25
100 As
0.15 ≤ ≤3
bd
100 As 100g266
= = 0.2359 ≥ 0.15
bd 230g490
1 1
 400  4  400  4
 =
 0.95 ≥ 1, so   is taken as 1.
 d   d 
f cu ≤ 40 MPa (for calculation purposes only) and A s is the area of tension
reinforcement.
If (v c + 0.4) < v ≤ v max
Asv (v − vc )bw
=
sv 0.87 f yv
Asv (v − vc )bw
= = 0.231 sq-mm/mm
sv 0.87 f yv

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HK CP-2013 Example 002

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.
In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected to factored axial load N

= 1971 kN and moment M y = 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.

1971 kN
My= 493 kN-m

550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m fcu = 30 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2


PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: HK CP-2013 EX002
CONCLUSION
The computed result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent result.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

f cu = 30 MPa f y = 460 MPa
b = 350 mm d = 490 mm
balanced condition, c b :
700 700
=cb = dt = ( 490 ) 312 mm
700 + f y / γ s 700 + 460 /1.15

N = Cc + C s − T
where
0.67
=Cc = fcu ab 0.67 1.5 •=30 • 350a 4667 a
γΜ
As′
Cs =
γs
( f y − 0.4467 fcu ) = ( 460 − 0.4467 • 30 ) =
2500
1.15
971, 014 N

= 2174 fs ( fs < f y )
As fs 2500 fs
= T =
γs 1.15
N1 =4, 667 a + 971, 014 − 2174 fs (Eqn. 1)
3) Taking moments about A s :

1  a 
=
N Cc  d −  + C s ( d − d ′ ) 
e′   2 
e′ =e + d ′′ =250 + 215 =465 mm
1   a 
=N  4, 667 a  490 −  + 971, 014 ( 490 − 60 ) 
465   2 
N = 4917.9a − 5.018a 2 + 897,926 (Eqn. 2)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
4) Assume c = 364 mm, which exceed c b (312 mm).

= =
a 0.9 • 364 327.6 mm
N 2 4917.9 • 327.6 − 5.018 ( 327.6 ) + 897,926

2
= = 1,970,500 N
5) Calculate f s from the strain diagram when c = 365 mm.

 490 − 364 
=fs =  700 242.3 MPa
 364 
ε s =εt =fs Es = 0.0012
6) Substitute a = 327.6 mm and f s = 242.3 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate N 1 :

N1 4, 667 ( 327.6 ) + 971, 014 − 2174 ( 242.3
= = ) 1,973,163 N
which is very close to the calculated N 2 of 1,970,500 (less than 1% difference)
 250 
M = Ne = 1971  = 493 kN-m
 1000 

 365 − 60 
=ε′s   ( 0.0035
= ) 0.00292
= > ε y 0.0023
 365 
8) Therefore, the section capacity is
N = 1971 kN
M = 493 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
IS 456-2000 Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

of 37.778 kN/m. This example is tested using the IS 456-2000 concrete design
results.

300mm
CL A
37.5 mm 600 mm
A
Section A-A
6m

E= 19.365x106 kN/m2 d = 562.5 mm fck = 15 MPa
ν= 0.2 w = 37.778 kN/m fy = 415 MPa
G= 8068715.3kN/m2

IS 456-2000 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
Percent
Shear Reinf, Asv/s (mm2/mm) 0.333 0.333 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: IS 456-2000 Ex001
CONCLUSION
IS 456-2000 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
γm, steel = 1.15
α = 0.36
β = 0.42
0.85
As ,min ≥ bd = 345.63 sq-mm
fy
COMB1
Mu = 170 kN-m
Vu = 113.33 kN-m
0.53 if f y ≤ 250 MPa


0.53 − 0.05 f y − 250 if 250 < f y ≤ 415 MPa
xu ,max  165
=
d 0.48 − 0.02 y − 415
f
if 415 < f y ≤ 500 MPa
 85

0.46 if f y ≥ 500 MPa
Xu , max = 0.48
d
The normalized design moment, m, is given by

Mu
m= = 0.33166
bw d 2α f ck
x u,max  x u,max 
Mw,single = αfckbwd2 1 − β  = 196.436 kN-m > Mu
d  d 
IS 456-2000 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
So no compression reinforcement is needed
= 0.3983
xu 1 − 1 − 4 β m
=
d 2β
 x 
z = d 1 − β u  = 562.5{1 − 0.42 • 0.3983}= 468.406
 d
 M 
As =  u
 = 1006 sq-mm
 ( fy γ s ) z 
 
Shear Design
Vu
τv = = 0.67161
bd
τmax = 2.5 for M15 concrete
k = 1.0
=δ 1 if Pu ≤ 0 , Under Tension
100 As
0.15 ≤ ≤3
bd
100 As
= 0.596
bd
τ c = 0.49 From Table 19 of IS 456:2000 code, interpolating between rows.
τcd = kδτc = 0.49
The required shear reinforcement is calculated as follows:
Since τv > τcd
 
Asv  0.4b (τ v − τ cd ) b   0.4 • 300 ( 0.67161 − 0.49 ) • 300 
= =
max  ,  max  , 
s (
 y f γ ) ( f y γ ) 
y 

 ( 415 1.15 ) ( 415 1.15 ) 
Asv mm 2
= =
max {0.333,0.150} 0.333
s mm
IS 456-2000 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
IS 456-2000 Example 002

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

= 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.

1913 kN
My= 478 kN-m

550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m f’c = 30 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2

IS 456-2000 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: IS 456-2000 Ex002
CONCLUSION
results. The larger variation is due to equivalent rectangular compression block
assumption.
IS 456-2000 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

b = 350 mm d = 490 mm
700 700
cb = 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'
(
Cs = s f y - 0.4286 f ck =
γs
) 2500
1.15
( 460 - 0.4286 • 30 ) = 972, 048 N
= 2174 f s ( f s < f y )
Af 2500 f s
T= s s=
γs 1.15
N1 = 4500a + 972, 048 - 2174 f s (Eqn. 1)

1  a 
(
N 2 = ' Cc  d -  + Cs d - d ' 
e   2
)

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)
IS 456-2000 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
a = 0.84 • 374 = 314.2 mm
N 2 = 4742 • 314.2 - 4.039 ( 314.2 ) + 898,883 = 1,911, 037 N
2
 490 - 374 
fs =   700 = 217.11 MPa
 374 
εs = εt = f s Es = 0.0011

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 

 374 - 60 
ε s' =   ( 0.0035 ) = 0.0029 > ε y = 0.0023
 374 
N = 1913 kN
M = 478 kN-m
IS 456-2000 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

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.

230mm
CL A
60 mm 550 mm
A
Section A-A
6m

E= 25x106 kN/m2 d = 490 mm fck = 30 MPa
ν= 0.2 b = 230 mm fyk = 460 MPa
G= 10416666.7kN/m2


PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
distribution.
Percent
Design Moment, MEd (kN- 165.00 165.00 0.00%

m)
Design Shear, VEd (kN) 110.0 110.0 0.00%
Shear Reinf, Asw/s (mm2/m) 345.0 345.0 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: NTC 2008 Ex001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for both of the load combinations:
γc, concrete = 1.50
α cc = 0.85
k1 = 0.44 k2 = 1.25 ( 0.6 + 0.0014 / ε cu 2 ) =
k4 = 1.25 k3 = 0.54
f cd = α cc f ck / γ c = 0.85(30)/1.5 = 17 MPa
f y 460
f yd = = 400 Mpa
γ s 1.15
η = 1.0 for fck ≤ 50 MPa
λ = 0.8 for fck ≤ 50 MPa
f ctm
As ,min = 0.26 bd = 184.5 sq-mm,
f yk
where f ctm = 0.3 f cwk

2/3
= 0.3(30)2/3 = 2.896 N/sq-mm
As,min = 0.0013bh = 164.5 sq-mm
COMB1
The factored design load and moment are given as,

wu = 36.67 kN/m
M =
wu l 2
8
∙
= 36.67 62/8 = 165.0 kN-m
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,

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
x δ − k1
  = for fck ≤ 50 MPa ,
 d  lim k2
where δ = 1 , assuming no moment redistribution
x δ − k1 (1 − 0.44 )
=  = = 0.448
 d lim k2 1.25
The normalized section capacity as a singly reinforced beam is given as,
x  λx 
mlim = λ   1 −    = 0.29417
 d  lim  2  d  lim 
The limiting normalized steel ratio is given as,

x
ωlim = λ   = 1 − 1 − 2mlim = 0.3584
 d  lim
The normalized moment, m, is given as,

M 165 • 106
m= = =0.1758 < mlim so a singly reinforced beam
bd 2 f cd 230 • 4902 • 17
will be adequate.
ω = 1 − 1 − 2m = 0.1947 < ωlim

 f bd  17 • 230 • 490 
As = ω  cd  = 0.1947   =933 sq-mm
 f yd   400
Shear Design
The shear force demand is given as,
VEd ω=
= L / 2 110.0 kN
The shear force that can be carried without requiring design shear reinforcement,
=VRd ,c CRd ,c k (100 ρ1 f ck ) + k1σ cp  bw d

1/3
 
VRd ,c= 0.12 • 1.6389 (100 • 0.0 • 30 ) + 0.0  230 • 490= 0 kN

1/3
 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
with a minimum of:

V=
Rd , c
vmin + k1σ cp  bd = [ 0.4022 + 0.0] 230 x 490 =
45.3 kN
where,
200
k=
1+ ≤ 2.0 = 1.6389
d
AS 0
ρ1
= = = 0.0 ≤ 0.02
bd 230490
As = 0 for ρl at the end of a simply-supported beam as it taken as the tensile
reinforcement at the location offset by d+ldb beyond the point considered.
(EN 1992-1-1:2004 6.2.2(1) Figure 6.3)
N Ed
σ cp
= = 0.0
Ac
CRd ,c = 0.18 / γ c =0.12
= =
vmin 0.035k 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 α + cot ϑ 
= =
VRd ,max zbα c f 'cd   297 kN
 1 + cot ϑ 
2
where,
= =
z 0.9 d 441.0 mm
α c = 1.0 since there is no axial compression
f 'cd = 0.5 f cd
α = 900 for vertical stirrups

vEd
=ϑ 0.5sin
= −1
5.33
0.2 f ck (1 − f ck / 250 )
where,

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
VEd
=
vEd = 0.9761
bw d
21.8 ≤ ϑ ≤ 45 , therefore use ϑ = 21.8
The required shear reinforcing is,

Asw VEd 1 110.0106 mm 2
= = = 249.4
s zf ywd ( cot α + cot ϑ ) sin α 441 460 2.5 m
1.15
The minimum required shear reinforcing is,
 Asw  mm 2
 =
 =
1.5 b 1.5 =
230 345.0 (controls)
 s  min m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

= 2174 kN and moment My = 544 kN-m. This column is reinforced with 5-25

2174 kN
My= 544 kN-m

550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m fck = 25 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2

RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: EN 2-2004 Ex002
CONCLUSION
results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
HAND CALCULATION

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:
700 700
cb = dt = ( 490) = 296 mm
700 + f y 700 + 460
N = Cc + C s − T
where
α f ck 0.85 • 30
Cc = ab = • 350a = 5950a
γc 1.5
As'  α f ck  2500  0.85 • 30 
 fy - =  1.5 
Cs = 460 - = 963, 043 N
γs  γ c  1.15 
= 2174 f s ( f s < f y )
Af 2500 f s
T= s s=
γs 1.15
N1 = 5,950a + 963, 043 - 2174 f s (Eqn. 1)

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 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
N 2 = 6270a - 6.3978a 2 + 890,556 (Eqn. 2)
a = 0.8 • 365 = 292 mm
N 2 = 6270 • 292 - 6.3978 ( 292 ) + 890,556 = 2,175,893 N
2
 490 - 365 
fs =   700 = 240.0 MPa
 365 
εs = εt = f s Es = 0.0012
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 
 365 - 60 
ε s' =   ( 0.0035 ) = 0.0029 > ε y = 0.0023
 365 
N = 2,174 kN
M = 544 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 simple-
span, 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.
(DL50) and one live load case (LL130) with only symmetric third-point loads of
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.

Width of beam, b = 300 mm
Concrete strength, fck = 30 MPa

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

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.
Reinforcement Area (sq-mm)

Moment
Method (kN-m) As+ As-
ETABS 360 2109 0
Calculated 360 2109 0
Av
Reinforcement Area,
s
(sq-mm/m)
180 515.3 515.4
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
φb = 0.85
=
β1 0.85 −.007(30 − 28)
= 0.836 for =
f ck 30MPa,
εc
cmax = d = 187.5 mm
ε c + f y Es
amax = β1cmax= 156.75 mm
=
Ac b=
d 150, 000 mm 2
 0.25 f ck
 Ac = 446.5
 fy
As ,min = max  mm2
 1.4 Ac = 456.5
 fy

= 456.5 mm2
COMB130
Vu = (1.0Pd + 1.0Pl) = 180 kN – Loads were Ultimate
Vu L
Mu = = 360 kN-m
3
2 Mu
a =−
d d2 − = 26.81 mm ; a < amax
0.85 f ck φbb
Since a < amax , compression reinforcing is NOT required.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
The required tension reinforcing is:

Mu
=As = 2108.9 mm 2
 a 
f y  d −  φb
 2 
Shear Design
φ = 0.75
The concrete limit is:

f ck = 5.48 MPa < 8.4 MPa

φVc = 1/6φ f ck bd = 102.69 kN
φVs= 0.25φ f ck bd = 154.05 kN

φVc/2 = 51.35 kN
φVmax = φVc + φVs = 256.75 kN
If Vu ≤ φ(Vc/2),
Av
= 0,
s
else if φ(Vc/2) < Vu ≤ φVmax
= u ≥ 
where:
 Av    b  b  
  = max 3.5   ,  w 0.2 f ck 
w
 s  min   f y   fy  

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
else if Vu > φVmax,

Combo1
Vu = 180 kN
φ (Vc /=
2 ) 51.35 kN ≤ =
Vu 180 kN ≤ φ Vmax
= 256.75 kN
 Av    300   0.2 30  
  = max  3.5   
,  
 300 
 s min   420   420  
 Av  mm 2
=
  =
max { 2.5, 0.78} 0.0083
 s  min mm
Av (Vu − φVc ) mm 2 mm 2
= = 0.5154 = 515.4
s φ f yd mm m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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

1879 kN
My= 470 kN-m

550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m fck = 30 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2


PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: KBC 2009 Ex002
CONCLUSION
results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
fck = 30 MPa fy = 460 MPa

b = 350 mm d = 490 mm
0.003 0.003
cmax = 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
( )
Cs = As' f y - 0.85 f ck = 2500 ( 460 - 0.85 • 30 ) = 1, 086, 250 N
T = As f s = 2500 f s ( f s < f y )
Pu = 8,925a +1, 086, 250 - 2500 f s (Eqn. 1)
1  a 
Pu = '  c
e   2
(
C d -  + Cs d - d '  )

e' = e + d " = 250 + 215 = 465 mm
1   a 
Pu = 8,925a  490 -  + 1, 086, 250 ( 490 - 60 ) 
465   2 
2
Pu = 9, 404.8a - 9.6a +1, 004, 489.2 (Eqn. 2)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
4) Assume c = 335 mm, which exceed cmax (183.75 mm).
=
β1 0.85 −.007(30 − 28)
= 0.836 for =
f ck 30MPa,
a = 0.836 • 335 = 280 mm
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 
εs = εt = f s Es = 0.00138
6) Substitute a = 280 mm and fs = 277.7 MPa in Eqn. 1 to calculate Pu2 :

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 
ε s' =   ( 0.003) = 0.00263 > ε y = 0.0023
 335 
Pu = 0.65 • 2890 = 21879 kN

M u = 0.65 • 722.5 = 470 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RCDF 2004 Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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
CL
W Ton/m A b
r
A
L
L=6m
h = 0.65 m
E= 1979899 kg/cm2 f’c = 200 kg/cm2 (19.6133 MPa)
r = 0.05 m
ν= 0.2 b = 0.30 m fy = 4200 kg/cm2 (411.88 MPa)
G= 824958 kg/cm2 W = 6.58 Ton/m
(64.528 kN/m)
RCDF 2004 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

 Design moment calculation, M and factored moment resistance, Mu.
 Minimum reinforcement calculation, As
 Design Shear Strength, V, and factored shear strength, Vu
RESULTS COMPARISON
distribution described in Example 5.2 on page 92 of “Aspectos Fundamentales
del Concreto Reforzado” Fourth Edition by Óscar M. González Cuevas and
Francisco Robles Fernández-Villegas.
Percent
Design Moment (kN-m) 290.38 290.38 0%
As (mm2) 1498 1498 0%
Design Shear (kN) 154.9 154.9 0%
Av/s (mm2/m) 563 563 0%
COMPUTER FILE: RCDF 2004 EX001
CONCLUSION
results for bending and an acceptable-conservative comparison for shear.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES

Clear span, L = 6 m
Concrete strength, f’c = 19.61 N/ mm2
Yield strength of steel, fy = 411.88 N/ mm2
Modulus of elasticity, Ec = 20.6x103 N/ mm2
Modulus of elasticity, Es = 20.0x104 N/ mm2
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
f 'c 19.61
=
f c* = = 15.69 MPa
1.25 1.25
ε c Es
cb = d = 355.8 mm
ε c Es + f yd
amax = β1cb = 302.4 mm
 f c* 
where, β1 1.05 − 
=  , 0.65 ≤ β1 ≤ 0.85
 140 
0.22 f 'c
=As ,min = bd 425.8 mm 2
fy
COMB1
ωu = 6.58 ton/cm (64.528kN/m)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Mu =
ωu l 2
8
∙
= 64.528 6.02/8 = 290.376 kN-m
The depth of the compression block is given by: (RCDF-NTC 2.1, 1.5.1.2)
2 Mu
a =−
d d2 − = 154.2 mm
0.85 f c* FR b
where FR = 0.9
Compression steel not required since a < amax.
Mu 290376000
As = = = 1498 mm 2
 a
FR f y  d − 
 0.9(411.88) ( 600 − 154.2 / 2 )
 2 
Shear Design
The shear demand is computed as:
= Vu ω ( 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,
(
= VcR + 0.8 f c* Acv
Vmax )
The nominal shear strength provided by concrete is computed as:
=VcR 0.3FRv ( 0.2 + 20 ρ ) f c* Acv = 0.3 • 0.8 ( 0.3665 ) 15.69 • 300 • 600
=43.553 kN where FRv = 0.8

The shear reinforcement is computed as follows:
 Av  0.1 f c ' mm 2
=
  = b 289 (RCDF-NTC 2.5.2.3, Eqn 2.22)
 s min fy m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
=
Av (=
Vu − FRvVcR ) 154.9 − 0.8 • 43.553
= 563
mm 2
s FRv f ys d 0.8 • 411.88 • 600 m
(RCDF-NTC 2.5.2.3, Eqn 2.23)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RCDF 2004 Example 002

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

1794 kN
My= 448 kN-m

550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m fcu = 30 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2


PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: RCDF 2004 EX002
CONCLUSION
results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

b = 350 mm d = 490 mm
600 600
=cb = 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
Cs =As′ ( f y − 0.85 f *c ) =
2500 ( 460 − 0.85 • 0.8 • 30 ) =
1, 099, 000 N
= T A= s fs 2500 fs ( fs < f y )
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 
N 2 =7542a − 7.677 a + 1, 016, 280
2
(Eqn. 2)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
4) Assume c = 347 mm, which exceeds cb (277 mm).

a = β1a = 0.836 • 347 = 290 mm
N 2 = 7542 • 290 − 7.677 ( 290 ) + 1, 016, 280 = 2,557,824 N

2

 490 − 347 
=fs =  600 247.3 MPa
 347 
ε s =εt =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
 250 
= Ne
M = 2552  =  638 kN-m
 1000 

 347 - 60 
ε s' =   ( 0.003) = 0.0025 > ε y = 0.0023
 347 
N = FR ( 2551) = 1794 kN
M = FR ( 638 ) = 448 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

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:
 The stress-block dimension, a, extends below, amax , which requires that

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.
A simple-span, 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.
(DL50) and one live load case (LL130) with only symmetric third-point loads of
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.
NZS 3101-2006 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
NZS 3101-2006 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Concrete strength, f’c = 30 MPa

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.
Reinforcement Area (sq-mm)

Moment
Method (kN-m) As+ As-
ETABS 510 3170 193
Calculated 510 3170 193
NZS 3101-2006 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Av
Reinforcement Area,
s
(sq-mm/m)
255 1192.5 1192.5
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
NZS 3101-2006 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
φb = 0.85
=α1 0.85 for f ′c ≤ 55MPa
=β1 0.85 for f ′c ≤ 30,
εc
cb = d = 283.02 mm
ε c + f y Es
amax = 0.75β1cb= 180.42 mm
=
Ac b=
d 150, 000 mm 2
 f ′c
 Ac = 446.5
 4 fy
As ,min = max  mm2
 1.4 Ac = 456.5
 fy

= 456.5 mm2
COMB130
V* = (1.2Pd + 1.5Pl) = 255 kN
V *L
M* = = 510 kN-m
3
2 M*
a =−
d d − 2
= 194.82 mm ; a > amax
α1 fc'φb b f
Since a ≥ amax , compression reinforcing is required.
NZS 3101-2006 Example 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
The compressive force, C, developed in the concrete alone is given by:

= 1 f ′c bamax
C α= 1,380.2 kN
The resisting moment by the concrete compression and tension reinforcement is:
 a 
M c* = C  d − max  φb = 480.8 kN-m
 2 
Therefore the moment required by concrete compression and tension
reinforcement is:
M s* = M * − M c* = 29.2 kN − m
The required compression reinforcing is given by:
M s*
=As′ = 193 mm 2 , where
( )
f s′ − α1 f 'c ( d − d ′ ) φb
amax
cb= = 0.75= = 212.26 mm
cb 0.75283.02
,max
β1
c − d '
=f s′ ε c ,max Es  b ,max  ≤ fy ;
 cb ,max 
 212.26 − 60 
f s′ 0.003200, 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:
M c*
=As1 = 3, 001 mm 2
 a 
f y  d − max  φb
 2 
And the tension required for balancing the compression reinforcement is given
by:
M s*
=As 2 = 169.9 mm 2
f y ( d − d ' ) φb
=
Therefore, the total tension reinforcement, As As1 + As 2 is given by:
NZS 3101-2006 Example 001 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
As = As1 + As 2 = 3001 + 169.9 = 3170.5 mm 2
Shear Design
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
=
v *
= 1.7 MPa < vmax , so there is no concrete crushing.
bw d
If ν* > νmax, a failure condition is declared.
For this example the required shear reinforcing strength is:

φs = 0.75
V* 255
V= − VC = − 65.727 = 274.3 kN
φS
S
0.75
560 mm > max {300 mm, 0.5bw =
Since h = 150 mm}
0.5300 =
φsνc = 0.328 MPa
NZS 3101-2006 Example 001 - 7

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
φsνmax = 4.5 MPa
So φsνc < ν* ≤ φsνmax, and shear reinforcement is required and calculate as:
Av VS 274.27 • 1E6
= = = 1192.5 mm 2
s f yt d 460 • 500
NZS 3101-2006 Example 001 - 8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.
In this example, a reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load N*


2445 kN
My= 611 kN-m

550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m f’c = 30 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2

NZS 3101-2006 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: NZS 3101-2006 Ex002
CONCLUSION
results.
NZS 3101-2006 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

b = 350 mm d = 490 mm
600 600
cb = 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 = As f s = 2500 f s ( f s < f y )
N * = 8,925a + 1,086, 250 - 2500 f s (Eqn. 1)
  a ' 
N* =
1
( )
 Cc  d - 2  + C s d - d 
 
e'  
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 (Eqn. 2)
NZS 3101-2006 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
a = 0.85 • 330 = 280.5 mm
N * = 9, 404.8 • 280.5 - 9.6 ( 280.5) + 1,004, 489.2 = 2,887, 205.2 N
2
 490 - 330 
fs =   600 = 290.9 MPa
 330 
εs = εt = 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
 250 
M * = N * e = 2877   = 719 kN-m
 1000 

 330 - 60 
ε s' =   ( 0.003) = 0.00245 > ε y = 0.0023
 330 
N * = 0.85 • 2877 = 2445 kN

M * = 0.85 • 719 = 611 kN-m
NZS 3101-2006 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
SS CP 65-1999 Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

Dead Load=25kN/m b=300mm
CL A
Live Load=19kN/m
d=490 mm
h=600 mm
300mm A 300mm
Section A-A
6m
Design Properties
fcu = 30 MPa
fy = 460 MPa
fyv = 250 MPa
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF TESTED
SS CP 65-1999 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
Percent
Shear Reinf, Asv/sv (mm2/mm) 0.730 0.730 0.00 %
COMPUTER FILE: SS CP 65-1999 EX001
CONCLUSION
The computed flexural results show an exact match with the independent results.
SS CP 65-1999 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
γm, steel = 1.15
As ,min = 0.0013bh , where b=300mm, h=600mm
= 234.00 sq-mm
Design Combo COMB1

wu = =65.4 kN/m
wu l 2
Mu = = 294.3 kN-m
8
wu l
Vu = − wu d = 160.23 kN
2
M
K= = 0.108 < 0.156
f cu b d 2
beam.
 K 
z = d 0.5 + 0.25 −  ≤ 0.95d = 473.221 mm, where d=550 mm
 0.9 

M
As = = 1555 sq-mm
( f y 1.15) z
SS CP 65-1999 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Shear Design
Vu = =160.23 kN at distance, d, from support
V
v= = 0.9711 MPa
bw d
vmax = min(0.8 fcu , 5 MPa) = 4.38178 MPa

1 1
0.84k1 k 2  100 As  3  400  4
vc =     = 0.4418 MPa
γ m  bd   d 
1 1
f  3  80  3
k2 =  cu  = 1.0, 1 ≤ k2 ≤  
 30   30 
γm = 1.25
100 As
0.15 ≤ ≤3
bd
100 As 100 • 469
= = 0.2842
bd 300 • 550
1 1
 400  4  400  4
 =
 0.95 ≥ 1, so   is taken as 1.
 d   d 
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 ( 0.9711 − 0.4418 )
= 0.730 sq-mm/mm
sv 0.87 f yv 0.87250
SS CP 65-1999 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
SS CP 65-1999 Example 002

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

with the calculated result. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

1971 kN
My = 493 kN-m
550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 m fcu = 30 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2

SS CP 65-1999 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: SS CP 65-1999 EX002
CONCLUSION
results.
SS CP 65-1999 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

b = 350 mm d = 490 mm
Position of neutral axis at balanced condition:
700 700
=cb = 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
γΜ
As′
Cs =
γs
( f y − 0.4467 fcu ) = ( 460 − 0.4467 • 30 ) =
2500
1.15
971, 014 N

= 2174 fs ( fs < f y )
As fs 2500 fs
=T =
γs 1.15
N1 =4, 667 a + 971, 014 − 2174 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, 667 a  490 −  + 971, 014 ( 490 − 60 ) 
465   2 
N = 4917.9a − 5.018a 2 + 897,926 (Eqn. 2)
SS CP 65-1999 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
4) Assume c = 364 mm, which exceeds cb (296 mm).

a = 0.9 • 364 = 327.6 mm
N 2 4917.9 • 327.6 − 5.018 ( 327.6 ) + 897,926

2
= = 1,970,500 N

 490 − 364 
=fs =  700 242.3 MPa
 364 
ε s =εt =fs Es = 0.0012

N1 4, 667 ( 327.6 ) + 971, 014 − 2174 ( 242.3
= = ) 1,973,163 N
 250 
M = Ne = 1971  = 493 kN-m
 1000 

 364 − 60 
=ε′s   ( 0.0035
= ) 0.0029=
> ε y 0.0023
 364 

N = 1971 kN
M = 493 kN-m
SS CP 65-1999 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
TS 500-2000 Example 001

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

230mm
CL A
60 mm 550 mm
A
Section A-A
6m

E= 25.000x106 kN/m2 d = 543.75 mm fck = 30 MPa
ν= 0.2 fy = 420 MPa

Concrete strength, fck = 30 MPa
Yield strength of steel, fyk = 420 MPa
-1
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Design Moment, Md (kN-m) 165.02 165.02 0.00%
Design Shear, Vd (kN) 110.0 110.0 0.00%
Shear Reinf, Asw/s (mm2/mm) 0.2415 0.2415 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: TS 500-2000 EX001
CONCLUSION
TS 500-2000 Example 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
f ck 30
f= = = 20
γ mc 1.5
cd
f yk 420
=
f yd = = 365
γ ms 1.15
ε cu Es
cb = d = 304.6 mm
ε cu Es + f yd
amax = 0.85k1cb = 212.3 mm
where, k1 = 0.85 − 0.006 ( f ck − 25 ) = 0.82 , 0.70 ≤ k1 ≤ 0.85
0.8 f ctd
=
As ,min = bd 315.5 mm 2
f yd
0.35 f cu 0.35 30
=
Where f ctd = = 1.278
γ mc 1.5
COMB1
ωd = 36.67 kN/m
Md =
ωd L2
8
∙
= 36.67 62/8 = 165.02 kN-m
2 Md
a =−
d d2 − = 95.42 mm
0.85 fcd b
Compression steel not required since a < amax.
Md 165E6
As = =
 a 365 • ( 490 − 95.41/ 2 )
f yd  d − 
 2
As = 1022 mm2
TS 500-2000 Example 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Shear Design
The shear demand is computed as:
ωL
Vd = =110.0 kN at face of support for this example
2
The shear force is limited to a maximum of,
= =
Vmax 0.22 fcd Aw 496 kN
 γN 
=Vcr 0.65 fctd bd 1 + d
  =93.6 kN, where N d = 0
 Ag 
= =
Vc 0.8Vcr 74.9 kN
If Vd ≤ Vcr
 Asw  f ctd mm 2
=
  =
0.3 b 0.2415 (min. controls) (TS 8.1.5, Eqn 8.6)
 s min f ywd mm
If Vcr ≤ Vd ≤ Vmax
=
Asw (=
Vd − Vc )
0.1962
mm 2
(TS 8.1.4, Eqn 8.5)
s f ywd d mm
TS 500-2000 Example 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
TS 500-2000 Example 002

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

with the computed result. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

1908 kN
My = 477 kN-m
550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
Ec = 25x106 kN/m2 b = 350 mm fck = 25 MPa

ν = 0.2 d = 550 mm fyk = 420 MPa
G = 10416666.7kN/m2

TS 500-2000 Example 002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: TS 500-2000 EX002
CONCLUSION
The computed result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent
result.
TS 500-2000 Example 002 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

fck = 25 MPa fyk = 420 MPa
b = 350 mm d = 490 mm
1) Because e = 167.46 mm < (2/3)d = 326.67 mm, assume compression failure. This
0.003 • 2x105 600
cb = dt = ( 490 ) = 305 mm
0.003 • 2x10 + f yk
5
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
γs  γ c  1.15
A f
T= s s=
γs
2500 f s
1.15
( )
= 2174f s f s < f y
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)
TS 500-2000 Example 002 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
4) Assume c = 358.3 mm, which exceed cb (305 mm).
a = 0.85 • 358 = 304.6 mm
5525 • 304.6 − 5.3312 ( 304.6 ) + 815,840
2
N=
2 = 1,907, 643 N

 490 − 358.3 
=f s =  600 220.2 > 420 MPa
 358.3 
εs = εt = 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
 250 
M = Ne = 1908   = 477 kN-m
 1000 

 358 − 60 
= ε′s   ( 0.003
= ) 0.0025=
> ε y 0.0021
 358 

N = 1908 kN
M = 477 kN-m
TS 500-2000 Example 002 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE ACI 318-08 Wall-001

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR WALL
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.
E= 3600 k/in2 tb = 12 in f ′c = 4 k/in2

ν= 0.2 h = 60 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2 As1= As5 = 2-#9 (2.00 in^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-#4 (0.40 in^2)
EXAMPLE ACI 318-08 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF ETABS TESTED

Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Wall Demand/Capacity Ratio 1.007 1.00 0.70%
COMPUTER FILE: ACI 318-08 WALL-001
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
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.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 fc′ab 0.85=
• 4 •12a 40.8a
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 = 40.8a + A1′ ( fs1 − 0.85 fC′ ) + A2′ ( fs 2 − 0.85 fc′) A1′ ( fs1 − 0.85 fc′) +
(Eqn. 1)
A3′ ( fs 3 − 0.85 fc′) − As 4 fs 4 − As 5 fs 5
3) Taking moments about As5:
1  a 
=
Pn 2 Cc  d −  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) − Cs 3 ( 2s ) − Ts 4 ( s )  (Eqn. 2)
e′   2 
Cs1 A1′ ( f s1 − 0.85 f c′)=

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 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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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′ 
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.0028; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.0014 f s 2 = 40.75 ksi
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs3   εs5 = 0.0000 f s 3 = 00.29 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.0014 f s 4 = 40.20 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.003 = 0.0028 f s 5 = 60.00 ksi
 c 
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=
n P=
ne 1035(24.54) /12 = 2116 k-ft
6) Determine if φ is tension controlled or compression controlled.
εt = 0.00244 , ε y = 0.0021
 0.005 − εt 
for ε y < εt < 0.005 ; φ = ( φt − φc )   = 0.712
 0.005 − ε y 
7) Calculate φ ,
φPn = 0.711(1035 ) =
735 kips
φM n = 0.711( 2115 ) =
1504 k-ft.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 3600 k/in2 tb = 8 in f ′c = 4 k/in2

ν= 0.2 h = 98 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2 As1= As6 = 2-#10,2#6 (5.96 in^2)
As2, As3, As4 and As5 = 2-#6 (0.88 in^2)

 Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
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
(Eqn. 1)
  a −tf  
1 Ccf ( d - d ′ ) + Ccw  d − − t f  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + 
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 2 ( 4s ) + Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Cs1 A1′ ( fs1 − 0.85 fc′)=

where= , Csn An′ ( fsn − 0.85 fc′) , Tsn = f sn Asn , and the bar strains
98 − 8
are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section, d ′′ =
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 :
c−d '
ε s1 =  0.003 f s ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.00273;=
 c 
c−s−d '
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.00152 f s 2 = 44.07 ksi
 c 
 c − 2s − d ' 
εs3 =   0.003 = 0.00310 fs3 = 8.94 ksi
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs 4   εs6 = 0.00090 f s 4 = 26.2 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs5   εs6 = 0.00211 fs5 = 60.00 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs6 =   0.003 = 0.00333 fs6 = 60.00 ksi
 c 
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=
n P=
ne 3148(46.78) /12 = 12,273 k-ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
εt = 0.00332 , ε y = 0.0021
 0.005 − εt 
for ε y < εt < 0.005 ; φ = ( φt − φc )   = 0.757
 0.005 − ε y 
7) Calculate the capacity,
φPn = 0.757 ( 3148 ) =

2384 kips
φM n = 0.757 (12, 273) =
9293 k-ft.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

moments Muy = 1,504 k-ft. This wall is reinforced with two #9 bars at each end

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 3600 k/in2 tb = 12 in f ′c = 4 k/in2

ν= 0.2 h = 60 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2 As1= As5 = 2-#9 (2.00 in^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-#4 (0.40 in^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

2 below were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 fc′ab 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′) +
(Eqn. 1)
A3′ ( fs 3 − 0.85 fc′) − As 4 fs 4 − As 5 fs 5
1  a 
=
e′   2 
where= Cs1 A′ ( f s1 − 0.85 f c′)=

; Csn An′ ( fsn − 0.85 fc′) ; Tsn = f sn Asn ; and the bar strains
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.

a = 0.85 • 30.1 = 25.58 inches
fs = f y :

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
c−d '
ε s1 =  0.003 ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.0028; f s =
 c 
c−s−d '
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.0014 f s 2 = 40.75 ksi
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs3   εs5 = 0.0000 f s 3 = 00.29 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.0014 f s 4 = 40.20 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   87 = 0.0028 f s 5 = 60.00 ksi
 c 
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=
n P=
ne 1035(24.54) /12 = 2116 k-ft
εt = 0.00244 , ε y = 0.0021
 0.005 − εt 
for ε y < εt < 0.005 ; φ = ( φt − φc )   = 0.712
 0.005 − ε y 
7) Calculate φ ,
φPn = 0.711(1035 ) =
735 kips
φM n = 0.711( 2115 ) =
1504 k-ft.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 3600 k/in2 tb = 8 in f ′c = 4 k/in2

ν= 0.2 h = 98 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2 As1= As6 = 2-#10,2#6 (5.96 in^2)
As2, As3, As4 and As5 = 2-#6 (0.88 in^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

Pn1 = Cc + Cs − T
where
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′) +
(Eqn. 1)

  a −tf  
1 Ccf ( d − d ′ ) + Ccw  d − − t f  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + 
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 2 ( 4s ) + Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 
Cs1 A1′ ( fs1 − 0.85 fc′)=

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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

inches.
a = 0.85 • c=0.85 • 44.58 = 37.89 inches
stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain
then, f s = f y :
c−d '
ε s1 =   0.003 f s ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.00273;=
 c 
c−s−d '
ε s2 =   0.003 = 0.00152 f s 2 = 44.07 ksi
 c 
 c − 2s − d ' 
ε s3 =   0.003 = 0.00310 f s 3 = 8.94 ksi
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
ε s4 =   ε s6 = 0.00090 f s 4 = 26.2 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
ε s5 =   ε s6 = 0.00211 f s 5 = 60.00 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c 
ε s6 =   0.003 = 0.00333 f s 6 = 60.00 ksi
 c 
Pn1 = 3148 k
Pn2 = 3148 k
M=
n P=
ne 3148(46.78) /12 = 12,273 k-ft

εt = 0.00332 , ε y = 0.0021
 0.005 − εt 
for ε y < εt < 0.005 ; φ = ( φt − φc )   = 0.757
 0.005 − ε y 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
φPn = 0.757 ( 3148 ) =

2384 kips
φM n = 0.757 (12, 273) =
9, 293 k-ft.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

moments Muy = 1,504 k-ft. This wall is reinforced with two #9 bars at each end

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 3600 k/in2 tb = 12 in f ′c = 4 k/in2

ν= 0.2 h = 60 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2 As1= As5 = 2-#9 (2.00 in^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-#4 (0.40 in^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

2 below were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 fc′ab 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′) +
(Eqn. 1)
A3′ ( fs 3 − 0.85 fc′) − As 4 fs 4 − As 5 fs 5
1  a 
=
e′   2 
where= Cs1 A′ ( f s1 − 0.85 f c′)=

; Csn An′ ( fsn − 0.85 fc′) ; Tsn = f sn Asn ; and the bar strains
inch
e′ =e + d ′′ =24.54 + 28 =52.55 inch.

a = 0.85 • 30.1 = 25.58 inches
fs = f y :

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
c−d '
ε s1 =  0.003 ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.0028; f s =
 c 
c−s−d '
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.0014 f s 2 = 40.75 ksi
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs3   εs5 = 0.0000 f s 3 = 00.29 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.0014 f s 4 = 40.20 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   87 = 0.0028 f s 5 = 60.00 ksi
 c 
Pn1 = 1035 k
Pn2 = 1035 k
M=
n P=
ne 1035(24.54) /12 = 2116 k-ft
εt = 0.00244 , ε y = 0.0021
 0.005 − εt 
for ε y < εt < 0.005 ; φ = ( φt − φc )   = 0.712
 0.005 − ε y 
7) Calculate φ ,
φPn = 0.711(1035 ) =
735 kips
φM n = 0.711( 2115 ) =
1504 k-ft.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 3600 k/in2 tb = 8 in f ′c = 4 k/in2

ν= 0.2 h = 98 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2 As1= As6 = 2-#10,2#6 (5.96 in^2)
As2, As3, As4 and As5 = 2-#6 (0.88 in^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

Pn1 = Cc + Cs − T
where
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′) +
(Eqn. 1)

  a −tf  
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 2 ( 4s ) + Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 
Cs1 A1′ ( fs1 − 0.85 fc′)=

where= , Csn An′ ( f sn − 0.85 f c′) , Tsn = f sn Asn , and the bar
98 − 8
= = 45 inches
2
e′ =e + d ′′ =46.78 + 45 =91.78 inches

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

inches.
a = 0.85 • c=0.85 • 44.58 = 37.89 inches
stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain
then, f s = f y :
c−d '
ε s1 =   0.003 f s ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.00273;=
 c 
c−s−d '
ε s2 =   0.003 = 0.00152 f s 2 = 44.07 ksi
 c 
 c − 2s − d ' 
ε s3 =   0.003 = 0.00310 f s 3 = 8.94 ksi
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
ε s4 =   ε s6 = 0.00090 f s 4 = 26.2 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
ε s5 =   ε s6 = 0.00211 f s 5 = 60.00 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c 
ε s6 =   0.003 = 0.00333 f s 6 = 60.00 ksi
 c 
Pn1 = 3148 k
Pn2 = 3148 k
M=
n P=
ne 3148(46.78) /12 = 12,273 k-ft

εt = 0.00332 , ε y = 0.0021
 0.005 − εt 
for ε y < εt < 0.005 ; φ = ( φt − φc )   = 0.757
 0.005 − ε y 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
φPn = 0.757 ( 3148 ) =

2384 kips
φM n = 0.757 (12, 273) =
9, 293 k-ft.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE ACI 530-11 Masonry Wall-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.
EXAMPLE ACI 530-11 Masonry Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 2250 k/in2 tb = 12 in f ′m = 2.5 k/in2

ν= 0.2 h = 60 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 750 k/in2 As1= As5 = 2-#9 (2.00 in^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-#4 (0.40 in^2)

 Wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
Wall Demand/Capacity Ratio 0.939 1.00 -6.1%
COMPUTER FILE: ACI 530-11 MASONRY WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

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
2 below were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
β1 fm′ ab =
Cc = 0.8 • 2.5 •12a =
24.0a
Cs = A1′ ( fs1 − 0.8 fm′ ) + A2′ ( fs 2 − 0.8 fm′ ) + A3′ ( fs 3 − 0.8 fm′ )
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)
1  a 
=
Pn 2 Cc  d −  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) − Ts 3 ( 2s ) − Ts 4 ( s ) 
e′   2 
(Eqn. 2)
where= Cs1 A1′ ( f s1 − 0.8 f m′ )=
; Csn An′ ( f sn − 0.8 f m′ ) ; Tsn = f sn Asn ; and the bar strains
inch
e′ =e + d ′′ =28.722 + 28 =56.72 inch.
a = 0.80 • 332.04 = 25.64 inch

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,
fs = f y :
c−d '
ε s1 =  0.0025 = 0.00207; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
 c 
c−s−d '
εs 2 =  0.0025 = 0.00125 f s 2 = 36.30 ksi
 c 
 c − 2s − d ' 
εs3 =   0.0025 = 0.00016 f s 3 = 4.62 ksi
 c 
 d −c−s 
εs 4 =  0.0025 = 0.00093 f s 4 = 27.10 ksi
 c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.0025 = 0.00203 f s 5 = 58.70 ksi
 c 
Pn1 = 618 k;
Pn2 = 618 k
M=
n P=
ne 618(28.72) /12 = 1479 k-ft
6) Calculate φ ,
φPn = 0.9 ( 618 ) =

556 kips
φM n = 0.9 (1479 ) =
1331 k-ft.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE ACI 530-11 Masonry Wall-002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 3600 k/in2 tb = 8 in f ′c = 4 k/in2

ν= 0.2 h = 98 in fy = 60 k/in2
G= 1500 k/in2 As1= As6 = 2-#10,2#6 (5.96 in^2)
As2, As3, As4 and As5 = 2-#6 (0.88 in^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: ACI 530-11 MASONRY WALL-002
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

Pn1 = Cc + Cs − T
where
β1 fm′ ab =
Cc = 0.8 • 2.5 •12a =
24.0a
Cs = A1′ ( fs1 − 0.8 fm′ ) + A2′ ( fs 2 − 0.8 fm′ ) + A3′ ( fs 3 − 0.8 fm′ )
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5 + As6 f s6
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
  a −tf  
1 Ccf ( d − d ') + Ccw  d −  + Cs1 ( d − d ') + Cs 2 ( 4s ) + 
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 
where= Cs1 A1′ ( f s1 − 0.8 f m′ )=

; Csn An′ ( f sn − 0.8 f m′ ) ; Tsn = f sn Asn ; and the bar strains
inch
e′ =e + d ′′ =59.24 + 45 =104.24 inch.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

inches.
= =
a 0.8 = 32.92 inches
• c 0.8 • 41.15
then f s = f y :
c−d '
ε s1 =   0.0025 f s ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.00226;=
 c 
c−s−d '
ε s2 =   0.0025 = 0.00116 f s 2 = 33.74 ksi
 c 
 c − 2s − d ' 
ε s3 =   0.0025 = 0.00007 f s 3 = 2.03 ksi
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
ε s4 =   ε s6 = 0.00102 f s 4 = 29.7 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
ε s5 =   ε s6 = 0.00212 f s 5 = 60.00 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c 
ε s6 =   0.0025 = 0.00321 f s 6 = 60.00 ksi
 c 
Pn1 = 1662 k
Pn2 = 1662 k
M=
n P=
ne 1662(41.15) /12 = 8208 k-ft
φPn = 0.9 (1622 ) =

1496 kips
φM n = 0.9 ( 8208 ) =
7387 k-ft.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
EXAMPLE AS 3600-09 Wall-001
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.
EXAMPLE AS 3600-09 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
E= 25000 MPa tb = 300 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d’ = 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

 Wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: AS 3600-09 WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 fc′ab 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′) +
(Eqn. 1)
A3 ( fs 3 − 0.85 • fc′) − As 4 fs 4 − As 5 fs 5
1  a 
=
Pn 2 Cc  d −  + Cs1 ( d − d ') + Cs 2 ( 3s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) − Ts 4 ( s )  (Eqn. 2)
e′   2 
Cs1 A1 ( fs1 − 0.85 • fc′)=

where= ; Cs 2 A2 ( f s 2 − 0.85 • f c′) ; Cs 3 ( f s 3 − 0.85 • f c′) ;
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.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
4) Using c = 821.7 mm (from iteration),
a = γ c = 0.84 • 821.7=690.2 mm, where= ′ 0.84

γ 1.05 − 0.007( f=
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 :
c−d '
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.0028; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460.00 ksi
 c 
c−s−d '
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.0015 f s 2 = 307.9 ksi
 c 
 d − c − 2 s 
=εs3   εs5 = 0.0003 f s 3 = 52.3 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.0010 f s 4 = 203.2 ksi
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.003 = 0.0023 f s 5 = 458.8 ksi
 c 
Pn1 = 5289 kN
Pn2 = 5289 kN
M=
n P=
ne 5289(582.6) /1000000 = 3081 k-ft
6) Calculate φ ,
φPn = 0.65 ( 5289 ) =

3438 kN
φM n = 0.65 ( 3081) =
2003 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
EXAMPLE AS 3600-09 Wall-002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
E= 25000 MPa tb = 200 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)
 Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: AS 3600-09 WALL-002
CONCLUSION
The ETABS result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent result.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
HAND CALCULATION

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
were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
Cc = 0.85 f c' ab = 0.85 • 30 • 300a = 7650a
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′) +
(Eqn. 1)

  a −tf  
1 Ccf ( d − d ') + Ccw  d − − t f  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + 
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 2 ( 4s ) + Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
where= Cs1 A1′ ( fs1 − 0.85 fc′)=

, Csn An′ ( fsn − 0.85 fc′) , Tsn = fsn Asn , and the bar strains
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
(4) Using c = 1341.6 mm (from iteration)
a=β1c =0.85 •1341.6 =1140.4 mm
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 1341.6 mm, the steel stresses
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.00278; fs =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.00199 f s 2 = 398.7 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ′ 
εs3 =   0.003 = 0.00121 f s 3 = 242.2 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs 4   εs 6 = 0.00080 f s 4 = 160.3 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs5   εs 6 = 0.00158 f s 5 = 16.8 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs 6 =  0.003 = 0.00237 f s 6 = 460.0 MPa
 c 
two equations are equal give,
Pn1 = 17192 kN
Pn2 = 17192 kN
M=
n P=
ne 17192(1124.3) /1000000 = 19329 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 2
6) Calculate φ ,
= φPn 0.65= (17192 ) 11175 kN
= (19329 ) 12564 kN-m
φM n 0.65 =

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE BS 8110-97 Wall-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

EXAMPLE BS 8110-97 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 300 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d’ = 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: BS 8110-97 WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
f ′c = 30MPa fy = 460 MPa

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

were equal.
The distance to the neutral axis for a balanced condition, cb:
700 700
=cb = dt = (1450 ) 922.7 mm
700 + f y / γ s 700 + 460 /1.15
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
0.67 0.67
=Cc = fcu ab •=
30 • 300a 4020a
γm 1.5
As′1  0.67  As′2  0.67  As′3  0.67 
Cs =  fs1 − fc′  +  fs 2 − fc′  +  fs 3 − fc′ 
γs  γm  γs  γm  γs  γm 
As 4 A
=T fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
γs γs
As′1  0.67  As′2  0.67 
Pn1 =4709a +  fs1 − fc′  +  fs 2 − fc′  +
γs  γm  γs  γm 
(Eqn. 1)
As′3  0.67  As 4 A
 fs 3 − fc′  − fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
γs  γm  γs γs

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
1  a 
=
Pn 2 Cc  d −  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + Cs 2 ( d − d ′ − s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) − Ts 4 ( s )  (Eqn. 2)
e′   2 
As1  0.67  As 2  0.67  As 3  0.67 
=
where Cs1  f s1 − ′  ; Cs 2
f c=  fs2 − f c′=
 ; Cs 3  fs3 − f c′  ;
As 4  0.67 
=Ts 4  fs4 − f c′  and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.
γs  γm 

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= β1c =0.9 • 875.2 =787.7 mm
fs = f y :
c−d '
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.00330; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa
 c 
c−s−d '
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.00190 f s 2 = 380.1 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs3   εs5 = 0.00050 f s 3 = 100.1 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.00090 f s 4 = 179.8 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.003 = 0.00230 f s 5 = 459.7 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 3246 kN
Pn2 = 3246 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3246(606.5) /1000 = 1969 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE BS 8110-97 Wall-002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 200 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

 Wall flexural demand/capacity ratio
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: BS 8110-97 WALL-002
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
1) A value of e = 1430 mm was determined using e = M u / Pu where M u and Pu were

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
compression
0.67
= Ccw fcu • 200 • ( a − 200 )
γm
0.67
Ccf = fcu ( 200 • 2500 )
γm
As′1  0.67  As′2  0.67  As′3  0.67 
Cs =  fs1 − fc′  +  fs 2 − fc′  +  fs 3 − fc′ 
A A A
T = s4 f s4 + s5 f s5 + s6 f s6
γs γs γs
0.67 0.67 A′  0.67 
=Pn1 fcu • 200 • ( a − 200 ) + fcu ( 200 • 2500 ) + s1  fs1 − fc′ 
γm γm γs  γm 
(Eqn. 1)
As′2  0.67  As′3  0.67  As 4 As 5 As 6
+  fs 2 − fc′  +  fs 3 − fc′  − fs 4 + fs 5 + fs 6
γs  γm  γs  γm  γs γs γs

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
  a −tf  
1 Ccf ( d − d ′ ) + Ccw  d − −tf  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + Cs 2 ( 4 s ) 
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
 +Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2 s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 
As1  0.67  Asn  0.67  Asn  0.67 

=
where Cs1  f s1 − f c′=
 ; Csn  f sn − f c′=
 ; Tsn  f sn − f c′ 
and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.
e′ =e + d ′′ =1430 + 1150 =2580 mm.
4) Using c = 1160 mm (from iteration),
a=β1c =0.9 •1160 =1044 mm
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 1160 mm, the steel stresses
fs = f y :
c−d '
ε s1 =  0.0035 = 0.00320; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa
 c 
c−s−d '
εs 2 =  0.0035 = 0.00181 f s 2 = 362.0 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ' 
εs3 =   0.0035 = 0.00042 f s 3 = 84.4 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs 4   εs6 = 0.00097 f s 4 = 193.2 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs5   εs6 = 0.00235 f s 5 = 460.00 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs6 =   0.0035 = 0.00374 f s 6 = 460.00 MPa
 c 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Pn1 = 8368 kN
Pn2 = 8368 kN
M=
n P=
ne 8368(1430) /1000 = 11,967 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
EXAMPLE CSA A23.3-04 Wall-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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
EXAMPLE CSA A23.3-04 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
E= 25000 MPa tb = 300 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d’ = 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

 Flexural Demand/Capacity ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-04 WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
HAND CALCULATION
f ′ c = 30MPa fy = 460 MPa

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

were equal.
700 700
=cb = dt = (1450 ) 875 mm
700 + f y 700 + 460
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
Cc = φc α1 fc′ab = 0.65 • 0.805 • 30 • 300a = 4709a

Cs = φs As′1 ( fs1 − α1 fc′) + φs As′2 ( fs 2 − α1 fc' ) + φs As′3 ( fs 3 − α1 fc′)
T = φs As 4 fs 4 + φAs 5 fs 5
Pn1 4709a + A1′ ( fs1 − 0.805 fc′) + A2′ ( fs 2 − 0.805 fc′) − φAs 3 fs 3 − φAs 4 fs 4 − φAs 5 fs 5 (Eqn. 1)
=
1  a 
=
e′   2 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
where Cs1 = φs As′1 ( fs1 − α1 fc′) ; Cs 2 = φs As′2 ( f s 2 − α1 f c′) ; Cs 3 = φs As′3 ( f s 3 − α1 f c′) ;

Ts 4 = φs 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.
4) Using c = 894.5 mm (from iteration), which is more than cb (875mm).
a = β1c = 0.895 • 894.5 = 800.6 mm
fs = f y :
c−d '
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.00330; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa
 c 
c−s−d '
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.00193 f s 2 = 387.0 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs3   εs5 = 0.00057 f s 3 = 113.1 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.00080 f s 4 = 160.8 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.0035 = 0.00217 f s 5 = 434.7 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 3870 kN
Pn2 = 3870 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3870(545) / 1000 = 2109 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 200 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
WALL STRENGTH DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:
f ʹc = 30MPa fy = 460 MPa

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
Cc = φc α1 f c′ab = 0.65 • 0.805 • 30 • 300a = 4709a
compression
Ccw = φc α1 f c′•200• ( a - 200 )
Ccf = φc α1 f c′ ( 200•2500 )
Cs = φs As′1 ( fs1 − α1φc fc′) + φs As′2 ( fs 2 − α1φc fc′) + φs As′3 ( fs 3 − α1φc fc′)
T = φs As 4 fs 4 + φs As 5 fs 5 + φs As 6 fs 6
Pn1 = φc α1 fc′ • 200 • ( a − 200 ) + φc α1 fc′ ( 200 • 2500 ) + φs As′1 ( fs1 − α1φc fc′) +
φs As′2 ( fs 2 − α1φc fc′) + φs As′3 ( fs 3 − α1φc fc′) − φs As 4 fs 4 − φAs 5 fs 5 − φAs 6 fs 6
(Eqn. 1)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

  a −tf  
1 Ccf ( d − d ′ ) + Ccw  d − − t f  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + Cs 2 ( 4 s ) + 
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2 s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 
where Cs1 = φs As′1 ( fs1 − α1φc fc′) ; Csn = φs Asn′ ( fsn − α1φc fc′) ; Ts 4 = φs 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.

a= β1c =0.895 •1293.6 =1157.8 mm
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0030 and c = 1293.6 mm, the steel
then f s = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.0035 = 0.00323; fs =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.0035 = 0.00198 f s 2 = 397.0 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ′ 
εs3 =   0.0035 = 0.00074 f s 3 = 148.1 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs 4   εs 6 = 0.00175 f s 4 = 100.9 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs5   εs 6 = 0.00299 f s 5 = 349.8 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.0035 = 0.00230 f s 6 = 460.0 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 10687 kN
Pn2 = 10687 kN
M= n P=
ne 10687(1231.3) /1000000 = 13159 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 300 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d’ = 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

 Flexural Demand/Capacity ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
f ′ c = 30MPa fy = 460 MPa

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

were equal.
700 700
=cb = dt = (1450 ) 875 mm
700 + f y 700 + 460
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
Cc = φc α1 fc′ab = 0.65 • 0.805 • 30 • 300a = 4709a

Cs = φs As′1 ( fs1 − α1 fc′) + φs As′2 ( fs 2 − α1 fc' ) + φs As′3 ( fs 3 − α1 fc′)
T = φs As 4 fs 4 + φAs 5 fs 5
Pn1 4709a + A1′ ( fs1 − 0.805 fc′) + A2′ ( fs 2 − 0.805 fc′) − φAs 3 fs 3 − φAs 4 fs 4 − φAs 5 fs 5 (Eqn. 1)
=
1  a 
=
e′   2 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
where Cs1 = φs As′1 ( fs1 − α1 fc′) ; Cs 2 = φs As′2 ( f s 2 − α1 f c′) ; Cs 3 = φs As′3 ( f s 3 − α1 f c′) ;

Ts 4 = φs 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.
4) Using c = 894.5 mm (from iteration), which is more than cb (875mm).
a = β1c = 0.895 • 894.5 = 800.6 mm
fs = f y :
c−d '
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.00330; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa
 c 
c−s−d '
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.00193 f s 2 = 387.0 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs3   εs5 = 0.00057 f s 3 = 113.1 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.00080 f s 4 = 160.8 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.0035 = 0.00217 f s 5 = 434.7 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 3870 kN
Pn2 = 3870 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3870(545) / 1000 = 2109 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 200 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
f ʹc = 30MPa fy = 460 MPa

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
Cc = φc α1 f c′ab = 0.65 • 0.805 • 30 • 300a = 4709a
compression
Ccw = φc α1 f c′•200• ( a - 200 )
Ccf = φc α1 f c′ ( 200•2500 )
Cs = φs As′1 ( fs1 − α1φc fc′) + φs As′2 ( fs 2 − α1φc fc′) + φs As′3 ( fs 3 − α1φc fc′)
T = φs As 4 fs 4 + φs As 5 fs 5 + φs As 6 fs 6
Pn1 = φc α1 fc′ • 200 • ( a − 200 ) + φc α1 fc′ ( 200 • 2500 ) + φs As′1 ( fs1 − α1φc fc′) +
φs As′2 ( fs 2 − α1φc fc′) + φs As′3 ( fs 3 − α1φc fc′) − φs As 4 fs 4 − φAs 5 fs 5 − φAs 6 fs 6
(Eqn. 1)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

  a −tf  
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2 s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 
where Cs1 = φs As′1 ( fs1 − α1φc fc′) ; Csn = φs Asn′ ( fsn − α1φc fc′) ; Ts 4 = φs 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.

a= β1c =0.895 •1293.6 =1157.8 mm
then f s = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.0035 = 0.00323; fs =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.0035 = 0.00198 f s 2 = 397.0 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ′ 
εs3 =   0.0035 = 0.00074 f s 3 = 148.1 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs 4   εs 6 = 0.00175 f s 4 = 100.9 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs5   εs 6 = 0.00299 f s 5 = 349.8 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.0035 = 0.00230 f s 6 = 460.0 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 10687 kN
Pn2 = 10687 kN
M= n P=
ne 10687(1231.3) /1000000 = 13159 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE Eurocode 2-2004 Wall-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

EXAMPLE Eurocode 2-2004 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 300 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

 Concrete wall flexural demand/capacity ratio
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: EUROCODE 2-2004 WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

were equal.
700 700
=cb = dt = (1450 ) 922.7 mm
700 + f y / γ s 700 + 460 /1.15
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
α cc fck 1.0 • 30
= Cc = ab = • 300a 6000a
γm 1.5
As1  α cc fck  As 2  α cc fck  As 3  α cc fck 
Cs = fs1 − +  fs 2 − +  fs 3 − 
As 4 A
=T fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
γs γs
As1  α cc fck  As 2  α cc fck 
Pn1 =6000a +  fs1 − +  fs 2 − +
(Eqn. 1)
As 3  α cc fck  As 4 A
 fs 3 − − fs 4 − s 5 fs 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
1  a 
=
Pn 2 Cc  d −  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) − Ts 4 ( s )  (Eqn. 2)
e′   2 
As1  α cc fck  As 2  α cc f ck  As 3  α cc f ck 
=
where Cs1  fs1 − = ; Cs 2  fs2 − = ; Cs 3  fs3 − ;
As 4
Ts 4 = ( f s 4 ) and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.
γs

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 = λ1c = 0.80 • 885.33=708.3 mm
then f s = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.0035 = 0.00330; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.0035 = 0.00192 f s 2 = 383.7 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs3   ε s 5 = 0.00054 f s 3 = 107.0 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.00085 f s 4 = 169.7 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.0035 = 0.00223 f s 5 = 446.5 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 4340 kN
Pn2 = 4340 kN
M=
n P=
ne 4340(708.3) /1000 = 2503 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
EXAMPLE Eurocode 2-2004 Wall-002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu =

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
E= 25000 MPa tb = 200 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: EUROCODE 2-2004 WALL-002
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
HAND CALCULATION

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
Where
compression
α cc fck 0.85 • 30
Ccw= • 200 • ( a − 200 )= • 200 • ( a − 200 )= 3400(a − 200)
γm 1.5
α cc fck
= Ccf
γm
( 200 • ( 2500
= − 1000 ) )
0.85(30)
1.5
( 200 • ( 2500=− 1000 ) ) 5,100, 000
 α f   α f   α cc fck 
Cs =A1′  fs1 − cc ck  + A2′  fs 2 − cc ck  + A3′  fs 3 − 
 γm   γm   γm 
f f f
T = As 4 s 4 + As 5 s 4 + As 6 s 4
γs γs γs
As1  α cc fck  As 2  α cc fck 
Pn1= 3400(a − 200) + 5,100, 000 +  fs1 − +  fs 2 − 
As 3  α cc fck  As 4 A A
+  fs 3 − − fs 4 − s 5 fs 5 − s 6 fs 6
γs  γm  γs γs γs
(Eqn. 1)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
  a − tf  
1 Ccf ( d - d' ) + Ccw  d - − tf  + Cs1 ( d - d' ) + 
Pn2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′
Cs2 ( 4s ) + Cs3 ( 3s ) − Ts4 ( 2s ) − Ts5 ( s ) 
 
As1  α cc f ck  As 2  α cc f ck  As 3  α cc f ck 
=
where Cs1  f s1 − = ; Cs 2  fs2 − = ; Cs 3  fs3 − ;
As 4
Ts 4 = ( f s 4 ) and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.
γs

e′ =e + d ′′ =1322 + 700 =2472 mm.
a=β1c =0.895 •1299 =1163 mm
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.0035 = 0.00323; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.0035 = 0.00199 f s 2 = 398.2 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ′ 
εs3 =   0.0035 = 0.00075 f s 3 = 150.3 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs 4   εs6 = 0.00049 f s 4 = 97.5 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs5   εs6 = 0.00173 f s 5 = 345.4 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs6 =   0.0035 = 0.00297 f s 6 = 460.00 MPa
 c 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
Pn1 = 11605 kN
Pn2 = 11605 kN
M=
n P=
ne 11605(1322) /1000 = 15342 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE Hong Kong CP-2013 Wall-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.
A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load P u = 3246 kN and

moments M uy = 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.
EXAMPLE Hong Kong CP-2013 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 300 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d’ = 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

 Flexural Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: HONG KONG CP-2013 WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

were equal.
700 700
=cb = dt = (1450 ) 922.7 mm
700 + f y / γ s 700 + 460 /1.15
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
0.67 0.67
Cc = f cu ab = • 30 • 300a = 4020a
γm 1.5
As′1  0.67  As′2  0.67  As′3  0.67 
Cs =  fs1 − fc′  +  fs 2 − fc′  +  fs 3 − fc′ 
A A
T = s4 f s4 + s5 f s5
γs γs
As′1  0.67  As′2  0.67 ' 
Pn1 =4709a +  fs1 − fc′  +  fs 2 − fc  +
γs  γm  γ s  γ m 
(Eqn. 1)
As′3  0.67  As 4 A
 fs 3 − fc′  − fs 4 + s 5 fs 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
1  a 
=
e′   2 
As1  0.67  As 2  0.67  As 3  0.67 

=
where Cs1  f s1 − ′  ; Cs 2
f c=  fs2 − f c′=
 ; Cs 3  fs3 − f ′ ;
γs  γm  γs  γm  γs  γm c 
As 4  0.67 
=Ts 4  fs4 − f ′  and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.
γs  γm c 
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 = β1c = 0.9 • 875.2=787.68 mm
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.0035 =0.00330; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.0035 =0.00190 f s 2 = 380.1 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs3   εs5 =0.00050 f s 3 = 100.1 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 =0.00090 f s 4 = 179.8 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.0035 =0.00230 f s 5 = 459.7 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 3246 kN
Pn2 = 3246 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3246(606.5) /1000 = 1969 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE Hong Kong CP-2013 Wall-002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load P u = 8368
kN and moments M uy = 11967 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted below. The
design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results are compared

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa t = 200 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: HONG KONG CP-2013 WALL-002
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
compression
0.67
= Ccw fcu • 200 • ( a − 200 )
γm
0.67
Ccf = fcu ( 200 • 2500 )
γm
As′1  0.67  As′2  0.67  As′3  0.67 
Cs =  fs1 − fc′  +  fs 2 − fc′  +  fs 3 − fc′ 
A A A
T = s 4 fs 4 + s 5 fs 5 + s 6 fs 6
γs γs γs
0.67 0.67 A′  0.67 
=Pn1 fcu • 200 • ( a − 200 ) + fcu ( 200 • 2500 ) + s1  fs1 − fc′  +
(Eqn. 1)
As′2  0.67  As′3  0.67  As 4 As 5 As 6
 fs 2 − fc′  +  fs 3 − fc′  − fs 4 + fs 5 + fs 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
  a −tf  
1 Ccf ( d − d ′ ) + Ccw  d − −tf  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + Cs 2 ( 4 s ) + 
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2 s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 
As1  0.67  Asn  0.67  Asn  0.67 

=
 ; Csn  f sn − ′  ; Tsn
f c=  f sn − f c′ 
e′ =e + d ′′ =1430 + 1150 =2580 mm.
a=β1c =0.9 •1160 =1044 mm
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c= 1160 mm, the steel stresses
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.0035 = 0.00320; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.0035 = 0.00181 f s 2 = 362.0 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ′ 
εs3 =   0.0035 = 0.0020132 f s 3 = 84.4 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs 4   εs6 = 0.00097 f s 4 = 193.2 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs5   εs6 = 0.00235 f s 5 = 460.00 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs6 =   0.0035 = 0.00374 f s 6 = 460.00 MPa
 c 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Pn1 = 8368 kN
Pn2 = 8368 kN
M=
n P=
ne 8368(1430) /1000 = 11,967 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE Indian IS 456-2000 Wall-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.
A reinforced concrete wall is subjected factored axial load Pu = 3146 kN and

EXAMPLE Indian IS 456-2000 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 300 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d’ = 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: INDIAN IS 456-2000 WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
F ′c = 30MPa fy = 460 MPa

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
0.36
Cc = 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′)
γs γs γs
A A
T = s4 f s4 + s5 f s5
γs γs
As′1 A′
Pn1 =
3857 a + ( fs1 − 0.4286 fc′) + s 2 ( fs 2 − 0.4286 fc′) +
γs γs
(Eqn. 1)
As′3
γs
( fs 3 − 0.4286 fc' ) − s 4 fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
A
γs
A
γs
1  a 
=
e′   2 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
As1 As 2
=
where Cs1 ( f s1 − 0.4286 f c=
′) ; C s 2 ( f s 2 − 0.4286 f c′) ;
γs γs
As 3 A
=
Cs 3 ( f s 3 − 0.4286 f c′) ; Ts 4 = s 4 ( f s 4 ) and the bar strains and stresses are
γs γs
determined below.
e′ =e + d ′′ =596 + 700 =1296 mm.
4) Using c = 917.3 mm (from iteration)
a=β1c =0.84 • 917.3 =770.5 mm
fs = f y :
c−d '
ε s1 =   0.0035 f s ε s E ≤ Fy ;
= 0.00331;= f s1 = 460 MPa
 c 
c−s−d '
ε s2 =   0.0035 = 0.00197 f s 2 = 394.8 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ' 
ε s3 =   0.0035 = 0.00064 f s 3 = 127.7 MPa
 c 
 d −c−s 
ε s4 =   ε s5 = 0.00070 f s 4 = 139.4 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
ε s5 =   0.0035 = 0.00203 f s 5 = 406.5 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 3146 kN
Pn2 = 3146 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3146(596) /1000 = 1875 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE Indian IS 456-2000 Wall-002
FRAME – P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 200 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

 Concrete Wall Demand/Capacity Ratio
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: INDIAN IS 456-2000 WALL-002
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show a very close match with the independent results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
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.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
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 ck  +  0.84 
f - f s3 - f ck
γs  0.84  γ s 
s2
0.84  γ s 
A A A
T = s4 f s4 + s5 f s5 + s6 f s6
γs γs γs
0.36 0.36 As1'  0.36  As2'  0.36 
f ck •200• ( a - 200 ) + f ck 200 ( 2500-1000 ) +  f ck  +  0.84 
Pn1 = f s1 - f s2 - f ck
0.84 0.84 γs  0.84  γ s 
As3'  0.36  As4 A A
+  f s3 - f ck  - f s4 − s5 f s5 − s6 f s6
γs  0.84  γ s γs γs
(Eqn. 1)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
1   a − tf  
Pn2 = Ccf ( d - d' ) + Ccw  d - 2 − tf  + Cs1 ( d - d' ) + Cs2 ( 4s ) + Cs3 ( 3s ) − Ts4 ( 2s ) − Ts5 ( s ) 
e'   
(Eqn. 2)
A'  0.36  A'  0.36  A
Where Cs1 = s1  f s1 - f ck  ; Cs 2 = sn  f sn - f ck  ; Ts 4 = sn ( f sn ) and the bar
γs  0.84  γs  0.84  γs
strains and stresses are determined below.
e' = e + d " = 1138 +1150 = 2535 mm.
a = β1c = 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 :
c−d '
ε s1 =   0.003 f s ε s E ≤ Fy ;
=0.00323;= f s1 = 460 MPa
 c 
c−s−d '
ε s2 =   0.0035 =0.00199 f s 2 = 398.0 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ' 
ε s3 =   0.0035 =0.00075 f s 3 = 150.0 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
ε s4 =   ε s5 =0.00049 f s 4 = 98.1 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
ε s5 =   ε s5 =0.00173 f s 5 = 346.1 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
ε s6 =   0.0035 =0.00297 f s 6 = 460.0 MPa
 c 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
M=
n P=
ne 8426(1385) /1000 = 11670 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE KBC 2009 Wall-001

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

EXAMPLE KBC 2009 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa t = 300 mm f ck = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: KBC 2009 WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

were equal.
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
7650a + A1 ( f s1 − 0.85 • f ck ) + A2 ( f s 2 − 0.85 • f ck ) +

Pn1 =
(Eqn. 1)
A3 ( f s 3 − 0.85 • f ck ) − As 4 f s 4 − As 5 f s 5
1  a 
=
e′   2 
Cs1 A1 ( f s1 − 0.85 • f ck )=
where= ; Cs 2 A2 ( f s 2 − 0.85 • f ck ) ; Cs 3 ( f s 3 − 0.85 • f ck ) ;
e′ =e + d ′′ =576.2 + 700 =1276.4 mm.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
a = β1c = 0.836 • 833.27=696.61 mm,
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c= 833.27 mm, the steel stresses
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.0028; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460.00 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.0016 f s 2 = 312.0 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ' 
εs3 =   0.003 = 0.0003 f s 3 = 60.0 MPa
 c 
 d −c−s 
εs 4 =  0.003 = 0.00103 f s 4 = 259.5 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.003 = 0.0022 f s 5 = 444.1 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 5340 kN
Pn2 = 5340 kN
M=
n P=
ne 5340(576.4) /1000 = 3078 kN-m
6) Calculate φ ,
φPn = 0.65 ( 5340 ) =

3471 kN
φM n = 0.65 ( 3078 ) =
2000.7 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE KBC 2009 Wall-002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa t = 200 mm f ck = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 420 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm2)
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: KBC 2009 WALL-002
CONCLUSION
The ETABS result shows a very close match with the independent result.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
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)

  a −tf  
1 Ccf ( d − d ′ ) + Ccw  d − − t f  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + Cs 2 ( 4s ) + 
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Cs1 A1′ ( f s1 − 0.85 f ck )=

where= , Csn An′ ( f sn − 0.85 f ck ) , Tsn = fsn Asn , and the bar
2500 − 200
= = 1150 mm
2
e′ =e + d ′′ =1199.2 + 1150 =2349.2 mm

a= β1c =0.836 •1480 =1237.28 mm
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.0028; fs =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 420.0 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.00186 f s 2 = 373.0 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ′ 
εs3 =   0.003 = 0.00093 f s 3 = 186.5 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs 4   εs 6 = 0.0000 f s 4 = 0.0 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs5   εs 6 = 0.00093 f s 5 = 186.5 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs 6 =  0.003 = 0.00272 f s 6 = 373.0 MPa
 c 
axial force from two equations are less than 1%
Pn1 = 13232 kN
Pn2 = 13250 kN , use average Pn = 13242 kN
M= n P=
ne 13242(1199.2) /1000 = 15879.8 kN-m
6) Calculate φ ,
= φPn 0.85= (13242 ) 11256 kN
φM n 0.85 (=
= 15879.8 ) 13498 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE Mexican RCDF-04 Wall-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.
A reinforced concrete column is subjected factored axial load Pu = 3545 kN and

EXAMPLE Mexican RCDF-04 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 300 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: MEXICAN RCDF-04 WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 =
fc*ab 0.85 • 0.8 • 30 • 300a 6120a
A1 ( fs1 0.85 • 0.8 • fc* ) + A2 ( fs 2 − 0.85 • 0.8 • fc* ) + A3 ( fs 3 − 0.85 • 0.8 • fc* )
Cs =−
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5
6120a A1 ( fs1 − 0.85 • 0.8 • fc* ) + A2 ( fs 2 − 0.85 • 0.8 • fc* ) +

Pn1 =+
(Eqn. 1)
A3 ( fs 3 − 0.85 • 0.8 • fc* ) − As 4 fs 4 − As 5 fs 5
1  a 
=
e′   2 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Cs1 A1 ( fs1 − 0.85 • 0.8 • fc* )=

where= ; Cs 2 A2 ( f s 2 − 0.85 • 0.8 • f c* ) ;
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
plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d ′′ = 700mm
e′ =e + d ′′ =512.5 + 700 =1212.5 mm.
a =βc =0.85 • 916.2 =805 mm,
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 936.2 inch, the steel stresses
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.0028; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460.00 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.0017 f s 2 = 343.6 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs3   εs5 = 0.0005 f s 3 = 119.3 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.0060 f s 4 = 105.4 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.003 = 0.0175 f s 5 = 329.3 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 5064 kN
Pn2 = 5064 kN
M=
n P=
ne 5064(512.5) /1000000 = 2595 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
7) Calculate φPn and, φM n ,
φPn = 0.70 ( 5064 ) =

3545 kips
φM n = 0.70 ( 2595 ) =
1817 k-ft.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE Mexican RCDF-2004 Wall-002

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 10165 kN and moments Mu3 = 11430 kN-
m. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 200 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: MEXICAN RCDF-04 WALL-002
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
compression
= Ccw 0.85 • 0.8 fc′ • 200 • ( a − 200 )
Ccf = 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′)
Cs =
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5 + As6 f s6
=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)

  a −tf  
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 2 ( 4s ) + Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
where = Cs1 A1 ( f s1 − 0.85 • 0.8 f c′)=

, Csn An ( f sn − 0.85 • 0.8 f c′) , Tsn = f sn Asn , and the
bar strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section,
2500 − 200
d ′′ = = 1150 mm
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
fs = f y :
c−d '
ε s1 =   0.003 f s ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa
= 0.00279;=
 c 
c−s−d '
ε s2 =   0.003 = 0.00181 f s 2 = 362.2 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ' 
ε s3 =   0.003 = 0.00083 f s 2 = 166.8 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
ε s4 =   ε s6 = 0.00014 f s 3 = 28.6 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
ε s5 =   ε s6 = 0.00112 f s 4 = 223.9 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
ε s6 =   0.003 = 0.00210 f s 5 = 419.3 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 14522 kN
Pn2 = 14522 kN
M= n P=
ne 14522(1124.4) /1000000 = 16328 kN-m
6) Calculate φPn and φM n ,

= (14522 ) 10165 kN
φPn 0.70=
φM n 0.70 (=
= 16382 ) 11430 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE NZS-3101-2006 Wall-001

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

EXAMPLE NZS-3101-2006 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 300 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: NZS 3101-06 WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 fc′ab 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′) +

(Eqn. 1)
A3 ( fs 3 − 0.85 • fc′) − As 4 fs 4 − As 5 fs 5
1  a 
=
e′   2 
Cs1 A1 ( fs1 − 0.85 • fc′)=

where= ; Cs 2 A2 ( f s 2 − 0.85 • f c′) ; Cs 3 ( f s 3 − 0.85 • f c′) ;
e′ =e + d ′′ =576.2 + 700 =1276.4 mm.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
a = γc = 0.85 • 821.7=698.46 mm,
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c= 821.7 mm, the steel stresses
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.0028; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460.00 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.0015 f s 2 = 307.9 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2 s 
=εs3   εs5 = 0.0003 f s 3 = 52.3 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.0010 f s 4 = 203.2 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.003 = 0.0023 f s 5 = 458.8 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 5352 kN
Pn2 = 5352 kN
M=
n P=
ne 5352(576.4) /1000000 = 3085 kN-m
6) Calculate φ ,
φPn = 0.85 ( 5352 ) =

4549 kN
φM n = 0.85 ( 3085 ) =
2622 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE NZS 3101-06 Wall-002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
EXAMPLE NZS 3101-06 Wall-002 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 200 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: NZS 3101-06 WALL-002
CONCLUSION
The ETABS result shows a very close match with the independent result.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 fc′ab 0.85 • 30
= • 300a 7650a
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′) +
(Eqn. 1)

  a −tf  
1  cf
C ( d − d ′ ) + C cw  d − − t f  + C ( d − d ′ ) + C ( 4 s ) + 
Pn 2 = 
s1 s2
 2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
where= Cs1 A1′ ( fs1 − 0.85 fc′)=

, Csn An′ ( fsn − 0.85 fc′) , Tsn = fsn Asn , and the bar 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

a= β1c =0.85 •1259.8 =1070.83 mm
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.00276; fs =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.00167 f s 2 = 333.3 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ′ 
εs3 =   0.003 = 0.00057 f s 3 = 114.2 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs 4   εs 6 = 0.00052 f s 4 = 104.9 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs5   εs 6 = 0.00167 f s 5 = 324.0 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs 6 =  0.003 = 0.00272 f s 6 = 460.0 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 16029 kN
Pn2 = 16029 kN
M=
n P=
ne 16029(1199.2) /1000000 = 19222 kN-m
6) Calculate φ ,
= φPn 0.85= (16029 ) 13625 kN
φM n 0.85 (=
= 19222 ) 16339 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE Singapore CP65-99 Wall-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

EXAMPLE Singapore CP65-99 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 300 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d’ = 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: SINGAPORE CP65-99 WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
f ’c = 30MPa fy = 460 MPa

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

were equal.
700 700
cb = dt = (1450 ) = 922.7 mm
700 + f y / γ s 700 + 460 /1.15
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
0.67 0.67
=Cc = fcu ab •=
30 • 300a 4020a
γm 1.5
As′1  0.67  As′2  0.67  As′3  0.67 
Cs = fs1 − fc′  +  fs 2 − fc′  +  fs 3 − fc′ 
As 4 A
=T fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
γs γs
As′1  0.67  As′2  0.67 
Pn1 =4709a +  fs1 − fc′  +  fs 2 − fc′  +
γs  γm  γ s  γ m 
(Eqn. 1)
As′3  0.67  As 4 A
 fs 3 − fc′  − fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
  a 
1 Cc  d −  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + Cs 2 ( d − d ′ − s ) + 
Pn 2 =   2  (Eqn. 2)
e′
Cs 3 ( 2s ) − Ts 4 ( s ) 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
As1  0.67  As 2  0.67 

=
where Cs1  f s1 − ′  ; Cs 2
f c=  fs2 − f c′  ;
As 3  0.67  As 4  0.67 
=
Cs 3  fs3 − f=′
c  ; Ts 4  fs4 − f c′  and the bar strains and
stresses are determined below.

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=β1c =0.90 • 875.2 =787.6 mm
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.0035 = 0.00330; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.0035 = 0.00190 f s 2 = 380.1 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs3   εs5 = 0.00050 f s 3 = 100.1 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.00090 f s 4 = 179.8 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.0035 = 0.00230 f s 5 = 459.7 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 3246 kN
Pn2 = 3246 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3246(606.5) /1000 = 1969 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE Singapore CP65-99 Wall-002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 200 mm f ′c = 30 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 460 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: SINGAPORE CP65-99 WALL-002
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
compression
0.67
= Ccw fcu • 200 • ( a − 200 )
γm
0.67
Ccf = f cu ( 200•2500 )
γm
As′1  0.67  As′2  0.67  As′3  0.67 
Cs =  fs1 − fc′  +  fs 2 − fc′  +  fs 3 − fc′ 
A A A
T = s 4 fs 4 + s 5 fs 5 + s 6 fs 6
γs γs γs
0.67 0.67 A′  0.67 
=Pn1 fcu • 200 • ( a - 200 ) + fcu ( 200 • 2500 ) + s1  fs1 − fc′  +
(Eqn. 1)
As′2  0.67  As′3  0.67  As 4 As 5 As 6
 fs 2 − fc′  +  fs 3 − fc′  − fs 4 + fs 5 + fs 6
  a −tf  
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2 s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
As1  0.67  Asn  0.67  Asn  0.67 

=
 ; Csn  f sn − f c′=
 ; Tsn  f sn − f c′ 
e′ =e + d ′′ =1430 + 1150 =2580 mm.
a=β1c =0.9 •1160 =1044 mm
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c= 1160 mm, the steel stresses
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.0035 = 0.00320; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa
 c 
c−s−d 
εs 2 =  0.0035 = 0.00181 f s 2 = 362.0 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ′ 
εs3 =   0.0035 = 0.00042 f s 3 = 84.4 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs 4   εs6 = 0.00097 f s 4 = 193.2 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs5   εs6 = 0.00235 f s 5 = 460.00 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs6 =   0.0035 = 0.00374 f s 6 = 460.00 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 8368 kN
Pn2 = 8368 kN
M=
n P=
ne 8368(1430) /1000 = 11,967 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE Turkish TS 500-2000 Wall-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
example.

EXAMPLE Turkish TS 500-2000 Wall-001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 300 mm f ′c = 25 MPa

ν= 0.2 h = 1500 mm fy = 420 MPa
d= 50 mm
s= 350 mm
As1= As5 = 2-30M (1400 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4 = 2-15M (400 mm^2)

 Wall flexural demand/capacity ratio
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: TURKISH TS 500-2000 WALL-001
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
f’c = 25 MPa fy = 420 MPa

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
fck 0.67
= =
Cc 0.85 ab •=
25 • 300a 3350a
γc 1.5
A′  0.85  As′2  0.85  As′3  0.85 
Cs = s1  fs1 − fck  +  fs 2 − fck  +  fs 3 − fck 
γs  γc  γs  γc  γs  γc 
As 4 A
=T fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
γs γs
As′1  0.85  As′2  0.85 
Pn1 =
3350a +  fs1 − fck  +  fs 2 − fck  +
γs  γc  γs  γc 
(Eqn. 1)
As′3  0.85  As 4 A
 fs 3 − fck  − fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
γs  γc  γs γs
  a 
1 Cc  d −  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + Cs 2 ( d − d ′ − s ) + 
Pn 2 =   2  (Eqn. 2)
e′
Cs 3 ( 2s ) − Ts 4 ( s ) 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
As1  0.85  As 2  0.85 

=
where Cs1  f s1 − f ck= ; Cs 2  fs2 − f ck  ;
As 3  0.85  As 4  0.85 
=
Cs 3  fs3 − f ck= ; Ts 4  fs4 − f ck  and the bar strains and stresses
are determined below.

e′ =e + d ′′ =715 + 700 =1415 mm.
=
a k=
1c = 725.4 mm
0.85 • 853.4
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =  0.003 = 0.00282; f s =
ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 420.0 MPa
 c 
 c − s − d′ 
εs 2 =  0.003 = 0.00159 f s 2 = 318.8 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
=εs3   εs5 = 0.00036 f s 3 = 72.7 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
=εs 4   εs5 = 0.00087 f s 4 = 173.4 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
εs5 =   0.003 = 0.00210 f s 5 = 419.5 MPa
 c 
Pn1 = 3132 kN
Pn2 = 3132 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3132(624.4) /1000 = 1956 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE Turkish TS 500-2000 Wall-002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
E= 25000 MPa tb = 200 mm f ′c = 25 MPa

ν= 0.2 H = 2500 mm fy = 420 MPa
d= 2400 mm
s= 460 mm
As1= As5 = 4-35M+2-20M (4600 mm^2)
As2, As3, As4, As5 = 2-20M (600 mm^2)

 Concrete wall demand/capacity ratio
RESULTS COMPARISON
check.
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: TURKISH TS 500-2000 WALL-002
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION

were equal.
Pn = Cc + Cs − T
where
compression
f 0.85 • 30
Ccw= ck • 200 • ( a − 200 )= • 200 • ( a − 200 )= 3400(a − 200)
γc 1.5
Ccf 0.85 • ck ( 200 • ( 2500 − 1000 ) ) ( 200 • ( 2500 − 1000 ) ) 5,100, 000
f 0.85(30)
= = =
γc 1.5
 f   f   f 
Cs = A1′  fs1 − 0.85 • ck  + A2′  fs 2 − 0.85 • ck  + A3′  fs 3 − 0.85 • ck 
 γc   γc   γc 
f f f
T = As 4 s 4 + As 5 s 4 + As 6 s 4
γs γs γs
As1  fck  As 2  fck 
Pn1= 3400(a − 200) + 5,100, 000 +  fs1 − 0.85 • +  fs 2 − 0.85 • 
As 3  fck  As 4 A A
+  fs 3 − 0.85 • − fs 4 − s 5 fs 5 − s 6 fs 6
γs  γc  γs γs γs
(Eqn. 1)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

  a −tf  
1 Ccf ( d − d ′ ) + Ccw  d − − t f  + Cs1 ( d − d ′ ) + Cs 2 ( 4s ) + 
Pn 2 =   2   (Eqn. 2)
e′  
Cs 3 ( 3s ) − Ts 4 ( 2s ) − Ts 5 ( s ) 
As1  0.85  As 2  0.85  As 3  0.85 

=
where Cs1  fs1 − fck=
 ; Cs 2  fs 2 − fck=
 ; Cs 3  fs 3 − fck  ;
γs  γc  γ s  γ c  γ s  γ c 
As 4
Ts 4 = and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.
γs
e′ =e + d ′′ =1308.6 + 1150 =2458.6 mm.
4) Using c = 1327 mm (from iteration)
=
a k=
1c = 1061.1 mm
0.85 •1327
fs = f y :
 c − d′ 
ε s1 =   0.003 f s ε s E ≤ Fy ; f s1 = 420.0 MPa
= 0.00277;=
 c 
c−s−d '
ε s2 =   0.003 = 0.00173 f s 2 = 346.8 MPa
 c 
 c − 2s − d ' 
ε s3 =   0.003 = 0.00069 f s 3 = 138.8 MPa
 c 
 d − c − 2s 
ε s4 =   ε s6 = 0.00035 f s 4 = 69.2 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c−s 
ε s5 =   ε s6 = 0.00139 f s 5 = 277.2 MPa
 d −c 
 d −c 
ε s6 =   0.003 = 0.00243 f s 6 = 420.0 MPa
 c 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Pn1 = 9134 kN
Pn2 = 9134 kN
M=
n P=
ne 9134(1308.6) /1000 = 11952 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
AISC-360-05 Example 001
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 ½ in. normal weight concrete
above the deck, for fire protection and mass. Select an appropriate beam and
determine the required number of ¾ in.-diameter shear studs.

W21x55 w = 830 plf (Dead Load)
Span, L = 45 ft
E = 29000 ksi w = 200 plf (Construction)
Fy = 50 ksi w = 100 plf (SDL)
w = 1000 plf (Live Load)
AISC-360-05 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5

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.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent
Difference
Pre-composite Mu (k-ft) 333.15 333.15 0.00%
Pre-composite bMn (k-ft) 472.5 472.5 0.00%
Pre-composite Deflection (in.) 2.3 2.3 0.00%
Required Strength Mu (k-ft) 687.5 687.5 0.00%
Full Composite bMn (k-ft) 1027.1 1027.1 0.00%
Partial Composite bMn (k-ft) 770.3 770.3 0.00 %
Shear Stud Capacity Qn 17.2 17.2 0.00 %
Shear Stud Distribution 34 34 0.00%
Live Load Deflection (in.) 1.35 1.30 3.70%
Required Strength Vu (kip) 61.1 61.1 0.00%
Vn (k) 234 234 0.00%

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
COMPUTER FILE: AISC-360-05 EXAMPLE 001.EDB
CONCLUSION
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 75% of
the approximate value of the beam moment of inertia given by Equation (C-I3-3)
from the Commentary on the Specification for Structural Steel Buildings –
Thirteenth Edition.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
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 ½ in., hr = 3 in., sr =12 in., wr = 6 in.
Shear Connectors:
d = ¾ in, h =4 ½ in, Fu = 65 ksi
Design for Pre-Composite Condition:

Construction Required Flexural Strength:
wD  10 • 77.5  55.125 • 103  0.830125 kip/ft
wL  10 • 20 •103  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:
b M n  b • Zs • Fy   0.9 •126 • 50 12  472.5 kip-ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
Pre-Composite Deflection:
0.830
5• •  45 • 12 
4
5wD L4 12
 nc    2.31 in.
384 EI 384 • 29,000 •1,140
Design for Composite Flexural Strength:

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
Full Composite Action Available Flexural Strength:
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
Resistance of slab in compression:

Ac  beff • tc  10 •12  • 4.5  540 in
2
C  0.85 • f 'c Ac  0.85 • 4 • 540  1836 kips

Depth of compression block within slab:
C 810
a   1.99 in.
0.85 • beff • f 'c 0.85 • 10 •12  • 4
Moment resistance of composite beam for full composite action:
a 2.00
d1  (tc  hr )   (4.5  3)   6.51 in.
2 2
 d  20.8 /12 
Mn    Py • d1  Py •   0.9  810 • 6.51/12  810 •   1027.1 kip-ft
 2  2 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
Partial Composite Action Available Flexural Strength:

Assume 36.1% composite action:
C  0.361• Py  0.361• 810  292.4 kips
Depth of compression block within concrete slab:

C 292.4
a   0.72 in.
0.85 • beff • f 'c 0.85 • 10 •12  • 4
a 0.72
d1   tc  hr     4.5  3   7.14 in.
2 2
Compression force within steel section:
P  C
y 2  810  292.4  2  258.8 kips
Tensile resistance of one flange:

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
Tensile resistance of one fillet area:

Ffillet   Py  2 • Fflange  Fweb  2  810  2 • 214.5  351.2  2  14.6 kips
Compression force in web:

Cweb  ( Py  C ) / 2  Fflange  Ffillet  258.8  214.5  14.6  29.7 kips
Depth of compression block in web:

Cweb 29.7
x •T  • 18.76  1.584 in.
Fweb 351.75
Location of centroid of steel compression force measured from top of steel section:
0.5 • t f • Fflange   t f  0.5 • rfillet  • Ffillet   t f  rfillet  0.5 • x  • Cweb
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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
Moment resistance of composite beam for partial composite action:

M n   C •  d1  d 2   Py •  d 3  d 2  
  20.8 
 0.9  292.4 •  7.14  0.467   810 •   0.467   12  770.3 kip-ft
  2 
Shear Stud Strength:
From AISC Manual Table 3.21 assuming one shear stud per rib placed in the
weak position, the strength of ¾ in.-diameter shear studs in normal weight
concrete with fc  4 ksi and deck oriented perpendicular to the beam is:
Qn  17.2 kips
Shear Stud Distribution:
Qn 292.4
n   17 from each end to mid-span, rounded up to 35 total
Qn 17.2
Live Load Deflection:
Modulus of elasticity ratio:
n  E Ec  29, 000 3, 644  8.0
Transformed elastic moment of inertia assuming full composite action:
Moment Arm
Transformed from
Area Centroid Ay Ay2 I0
Element A (in2) y (in.) (in.3) (in,4) (in.4)
Slab 67.9 15.65 1,062 16,620 115
W21x50 16.2 0 0 0 1,140
84.1 1,062 16,620 1,255
I x  I 0  Ay 2  1,255  16,620  17,874 in.4

1, 062
y  12.6 in.
84.1
2
Itr  I x  A • y  17,874  82.6 •12.62  4, 458 in 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
Effective moment inertia assuming partial composite action:

I equiv  I s  Qn Py  Itr  I s   1,140  0.361  4, 458  1,140   3,133 in 4
I eff  0.75 • I equiv  0.75 • 3,133  2,350 in 4
5 • 1 12  •  30 •12 
4
5wL L4
 LL    1.35 in.
384EI eff 384 • 29, 000 • 2,350
Design for Shear Strength:

Required Shear Strength:
wu  1.2 • 0.830  1.2 • 0.100  1.6 •1  2.71 kip/ft
wu • L 2.71• 45
Vu    61.1 kip-ft
2 2
Available Shear Strength:
Vn   • 0.6 • d • tw • Fy  1.0 • 0.6 • 20.8• 0.375• 50  234 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
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
¾ 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 ½ 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.

Span, L = 45 ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4


RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Difference
Partial Composite bMn (k-ft) 772.5 772.4 0.01%
Shear Stud Capacity Qn 17.2; 14.6 17.2; 14.6 0.00%
Vn (k) 237.1 237.1 0.00%

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
CONCLUSION
The difference in partial composite action bending capacity is within the
accuracy of the hand calculations. 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 75% of the approximate value of the beam
moment of inertia given by Equation (C-I3-4) from the Commentary on the
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings –Fourteenth Edition.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
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:
Shear Connectors:
d = ¾ in, h =4 ½ in, Fu = 65 ksi

wD  (10 • 75  50) •103  0.800 kip/ft
wL  10 • 25 •103  0.250 kip/ft
wu  1.2 • 0.800  1.6 • 0.250  1.36 kip/ft
wu • L2 1.36 • 452
Mu    344.25 kip-ft
8 8
Moment Capacity:
b M n  b • Z s • Fy  (0.9 •110 • 50) 12  412.5 kip-ft  

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
0.800
5• •  45 • 12 
4
5wD L4 12
 nc    2.59 in.
384 EI 384 • 29, 000 • 984
Camber  0.8 • nc  0.8 • 2.59  2.07 in., which is rounded down to 2 in.
wu  1.2 • 0.800  1.2 • 0.100  1.6 •1  2.68 kip/ft
wu • L2 2.68 • 452
Mu    678.38 kip-ft
8 8
10.0 45.0 ft
beff  • 2 sides  10.0 ft   11.25 ft
2 8

Ac  beff • tc  10 •12  • 4.5  540 in
2
C  0.85 • f 'c Ac  0.85 • 4 • 540  1836 kips

C 735
a   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 
Mn    Py • d1  Py •   0.9  735 • 6.60 /12  735 •   937.1 kip-ft
 2  2 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4

Based on the force provided by the shear studs – see below:
C  0.532 • Py  391.1 kips
C 391.1
a   0.96 in.
0.85 • beff • f 'c 0.85 • 10 • 12  • 4
 a

d  t  h    4.5  3 
1 c r 2
0.96
2
 7.02 in.
Compressive force in steel section:

Py  C 735  391.1
  171.95 kips
2 2
Steel section flange ultimate compressive force:
C flange  b f • t f • Fy  6.53 • 0.535 • 50  174.7 kips
Distance from the centroid of the compressive force in the steel section to the top of
the steel section:
 (P  C) / 2   171.95 
d2  tf •  y   0.535 •   0.263 in.
 2 • C flange   2 • 174.4 

M n   C •  d1  d 2   Py •  d 3  d 2  
  20.8 
 0.9 391.1 •  7.02  0.263  735 •   0.263   12  772.4 kip-ft
  2 

From AISC Manual Table 3.21, assuming the shear studs are placed in the weak
position, the strength of ¾ in.-diameter shear studs in normal weight concrete with
fc  4 ksi and deck oriented perpendicular to the beam is:
Qn  17.2 kips for one shear stud per deck flute

Qn  14.6 kips for two shear studs per deck flute

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4

There are at most 22 deck flutes along each half of the clear span of the beam. With
two shear studs in the first flute and 21 in the next in the next 21 flutes, 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:
Qn  2 • 14.64  21 • 17.23  391.1kip

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4

n  E Ec  29,000 3,644  8.0
Transformed Moment Arm

Area from Centroid Ay Ay2 I0
Slab 67.9 15.65 1,062 16,620 115
W21x50 14.7 0 0 0 984
82.6 1,062 16,620 1,099
I x  I 0  Ay 2  1,099  16,620  17,719 in.4

1, 062
y  12.9 in.
82.6
2
Itr  I x  A • y  17, 719  82.6 •12.92  4, 058 in 4
I equiv  I s  Qn / Py ( I tr  I s )  984  0.53(4,058  984)  3,226 in 4
I eff  0.75 • I equiv  0.75 • 3,226  2,420 in 4
5wL L4 5 • (1 / 12) • (30 • 12) 4

 LL    1.31 in.
384 EI eff 384 • 29,000 • 2, 420

wu  1.2 • 0.800  1.2 • 0.100  1.6 •1  2.68 kip/ft
wu • L 2.68 • 45
Vu    60.3 kip-ft
2 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4

Vn   • 0.6 • d • tw • Fy  1.0 • 0.6 • 20.8 • 0.38 • 50  237.1 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The design is checked for the composite girder shown below. The deck is 3 in.
deep with 4 ½″ 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.

W24x76 P = 36K (Dead Load) Span, L = 45 ft
E = 29000 ksi P = 4.5K (SDL)
Fy = 50 ksi P = 45K (Live Load)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6

RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Difference
Shear Stud Capacity Qn 21.54 21.54 0.00%
Shear Stud Distribution 24, 4, 24 26, 3, 26 7.70%
Vn (k) 315.5 315.5 0.00%

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
CONCLUSION
ETABS places three fewer shear studs than the AISC example because while the
beam is designed for 50% composite action in both the ETABS model and the
AISC example, the 50% of composite action is measured at different locations.
In the ETABS model, the target of 50% of composite action is achieved at the
beam mid-span which is the point of maximum positive bending moment,
whereas in the AISC example, the 50% target of composite action is achieved at
the beam third-points. The reader can check that the ETABS shear stud
distribution still provides adequate bending strength at the beam third points. The
live load deflection differs due to a difference in methodology. In the AISC
the beam moment of inertia, whereas in ETABS, it is computed based on 75% of
the approximate value of the beam moment of inertia given by Equation (C-I3-4)
from the Commentary on the Specification for Structural Steel Buildings –
Fourteenth Edition.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
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:
Shear Connectors:
d = ¾ in, h =4 ½ in, Fu = 65 ksi

 22.4 
w A •w  sq.ft .  • 490 pcf  76.2 plf
steel steel  144 
PD  (45 ft)(10 ft)(75 psf )  (50 plf )(45 ft) (0.001 kip / lb)  36kips
PL  (45 ft)(10 ft)(25 psf )  (0.001 kip/lb)  11.25 kips
1.2 wL2 L
Mu   1.2 PD  1.6 PL 
8 3
0.076 • 30 2
30
 1.2  1.2 • 36 +1.6 • 11.25  622.3 kip-ft
8 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
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 n  Cb b M px  b BF ( Lb  Lp ) 
 1.0 750  22.6 • 10  6.78    677.2 kip-ft
0.0762
5•
• 3604
PD L 3
5wD L 4
36.0 • 360 3
12
 nc      1.0
28EI 384 EI 28 • 29, 000 • 2,100 384 • 29, 000 • 2,100
Camber  0.8 • nc  0.8 in. which is rounded down to ¾ in.

P   (45 ft)(10 ft)(75 +10psf )  (50 plf)(45 ft) (0.001 kip/lb)  40.5kips
D
P  (45 ft)(10 ft)(100 psf )  (0.001 kip/lb)  45 kips
L
1.2wL2 L
Mu   (1.2 PD  1.6 PL )
8 3
1.2 • 76.22 • 30 2
30
  (1.2 • 40.5 +1.6 • 45)  1216.3 kip-ft
8 3
30.0 ft
b   7.5 ft  90 in.
eff 8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6

C  Py  As • Fy  22.4 • 50  1,120 kips controls
Resistance of slab in compression
7.5 •12
Ac  beff • tc  (beff 2) • hr  (7.5 • 12) • 4.5  • 3  540 in
2
2
C  0.85 • f 'c Ac  0.85 • 4 • 540  1836 kips
C 1,120
a   3.66 in.
0.85 • beff • f 'c 0.85 • (7.5 •12) • 4
a 3.66
d1  (tc  hr )   (4.5  3)   5.67 in.
2 2
 d
M    C • d  P • 
n  1 y 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
Depth of compression block within slab

C 560
a   1.83 in.
0.85 • beff • f 'c 0.85 • (7.5 •12) • 4
a 1.83
d1  (tc  hr )   (4.5  3)   6.58 in.
2 2
Depth of compression block within steel section flange
Py  C 1,120  560
x   0.623 in.
2 • b f • Fy 2 • 8.99 • 50
d2  x / 2  0.311 in.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
M n  C • (d1  d 2 )  Py • (d3  d 2 )
  23.9 
 560 • (6.58  0.312)  1,120 •   0.312   12  1, 408 kip-ft
  2 
M n  0.9M n  0.9 •1, 408  1, 267.3 kip-ft

Qn  0.5 Asa f 'c Ec  Rg Rp Asa Fu
Asa  dsa 2 4  (0.75)2 4  0.442 in 2

fc '  4 ksi
E  wc1.5 f c '  1451.5 4  3, 490 ksi

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
Qn
n
Qn
560
  26 studs from each end to the mid-span
21.54
ETABS provides 24 studs from each end to the nearest concentrated load point on
each side, and adds 4 studs between the two load points to satisfy maximum stud
spacing requirement. 24 shear studs are provided between each concentrated load
point and the nearest girder end, and the resulting ultimate bending moment capacity
provided by these 24 shear studs is 1246 kip-ft which is greater than the locally
required bending moment capacity.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6

n  E / Ec  29, 000 / 3, 644  8.0
Moment Arm
Transformed from
Slab 50.9 17.2 875 15,055 86
Deck ribs 17.0 13.45 228 3,069 13
W24x76 22.4 0 0 0 2,100
89.5 1,103 18,124 2,199
I x  I 0  Ay 2  2,199  18,124  20,323 in.4

1, 092
y  12.2 in.
89.5
2
Itr  I x  A • y  20,323  90.3 •12.22  6,831 in 4
Effective moment of inertia assuming partial composite action:
I equiv  I s  Qn Py  Itr  I s   2,100  0.5  6,831  2,100   5, 446 in 4
I eff  0.75 • I equiv  0.75 • 5, 446  4,084 in 4
PL L3 45.0 • (30 • 12)3

 LL    0.633 in.
28EI eff 28 • 29,000 • 4,084

Pu  1.2 • PD  1.6 • PL  1.2 • 40.5  1.6 • 45  120.6 kip

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6
1.2 • w • L 1.2 • 0.076 • 30

Vu   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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
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
¾ 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 ½ 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.

Span, L = 45 ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0


RESULTS COMPARISON
Examples, Version 14.0, with the deflection calculation adapted to the provisions
of the Specification for Structural Steel Buildings –Fifteenth Edition.
Percent
Difference
Shear Stud Capacity Qn 17.2; 14.6 17.2; 14.6 0.00%
Bottom Flange Stress (ksi) 47.54 47.54 0.00%
Vn (k) 237.1 237.1 0.00%

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CONCLUSION
The difference in partial composite action bending capacity is within the
accuracy of the hand calculations. 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 beam equivalent moment of inertia given
by Equation (C-I3-3) from the Commentary on the Specification for Structural
Steel Buildings –Fifteenth Edition. According to that commentary, using the
lower bound value of the moment of inertia provides a conservative estimate of
the deflection, while using the equivalent moment of inertia results in a
prediction of deflection roughly equivalent to the statistical average of the
example tests reviewed.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
Section:
W21x50
d = 20.8 in, bf = 6.53 in, tf = 0.535 in, tw = 0.38 in, k = 1.04 in
As = 14.7 in2, Ss = 94.6 in3, Zs = 110 in3, Is = 984 in4
Deck:
Shear Connectors:
d = ¾ in, h =4 ½ in, Fu = 65 ksi

wD  (10 • 75  50) •103  0.800 kip/ft
wL  10 • 25 •103  0.250 kip/ft
wu  1.2 • 0.800  1.6 • 0.250  1.36 kip/ft
wu • L2 1.36 • 452
Mu    344.25 kip-ft
8 8
Moment Capacity:
b M n  b • Z s • Fy  (0.9 •110 • 50) 12  412.5 kip-ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
0.800
5• •  45 • 12 
4
5wD L4 12
 nc    2.59 in.
384 EI 384 • 29, 000 • 984
Camber  0.8 • nc  0.8 • 2.59  2.07 in., which is rounded down to 2 in.
wu  1.2 • 0.800  1.2 • 0.100  1.6 •1  2.68 kip/ft
wu • L2 2.68 • 452
Mu    678.38 kip-ft
8 8
10.0 45.0 ft
beff  • 2 sides  10.0 ft   11.25 ft
2 8

Ac  beff • tc  10 •12  • 4.5  540 in
2
C  0.85 • f 'c Ac  0.85 • 4 • 540  1836 kips

C 735
a   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 
Mn    Py • d1  Py •   0.9  735 • 6.60 /12  735 •   937.1 kip-ft
 2  2 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Based on the force provided by the shear studs – see below:
C  0.532 • Py  0.532 • 735  391.1 kips
C 391.1
a   0.96 in.
0.85 • beff • f 'c 0.85 • 10 • 12  • 4
 a

d  t  h    4.5  3 
1 c r 2
0.96
2
 7.02 in.

Py  C 735  391.1
  171.95 kips
2 2
Distance from the centroid of the compressive force in the steel section to the top of
the steel section:
( Py  C ) / 2 171.95
d2  t f •  0.535 •  0.263 in.
2 • C flange 2 • 174.4

M n   C •  d1  d 2   Py •  d 3  d 2  
  20.8 
 0.9 391.1 •  7.02  0.263  735 •   0.263   12  772.4 kip-ft
  2 

From AISC Manual Table 3.21, assuming the shear studs are placed in the weak
position, the strength of ¾ in.-diameter shear studs in normal weight concrete with
fc  4 ksi and deck oriented perpendicular to the beam is:
Qn  17.2 kips for one shear stud per deck flute

Qn  14.6 kips for two shear studs per deck flute

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

There are at most 22 deck flutes along each half of the clear span of the beam. With
two shear studs in the first flute and 21 in the next in the next 21 flutes, 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:
Qn  2 • 14.64  21 • 17.23  391.1kip
Design for Deflection:
n  E Ec  29,000 3,644  8.0

Slab 67.9 15.65 1,062 16,620 115
W21x50 14.7 0 0 0 984
82.6 1,062 16,620 1,099
I x  I 0  Ay 2  1,099  16,620  17,719 in.4

1, 062
y  12.9 in.
82.6
2
Itr  I x  A • y  17, 719  82.6 •12.92  4, 058 in 4
I equiv  I s  Qn / Py ( I tr  I s )  984  0.53(4,058  984)  3,226 in 4
5wL L4 5 • (1 / 12) • (30 • 12) 4

 LL    0.99 in.
384 EI eff 384 • 29,000 • 3,326

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Bottom Flange Stress Check:

Maximum bending moments from un-factored service load:
wwet dead  0.8 kip/ft  0.6667 kip/in
wwet dead • L2 0.6667 • (45 • 12)2

M wet dead    2430 kip-in
8 8
wsdl live  0.1  1  1.1 kip/ft  0.09167 kip-in
wwet dead • L2 0.09167 • (45 • 12)2

M sdl  live    3341.3 kip-in
8 8
Section modulus assuming full composite action:
I tr 4,058
Str    174.4 in 3
d   20.8 
  y   12.9 
2   2 
Section modulus assuming partial composite action:
Seff  Ss  Qn / Py ( Str  Ss )  94.6  0.53(174.4  94.6)  152.84 in3
Maximum bottom flange stress:

M wet dead M sdl live
f bottom  f bottom (pre-composite)  f bottom (composite)  
Ss Seff
2430 3341.3
   47.54 ksi
94.6 152.84

wu  1.2 • 0.800  1.2 • 0.100  1.6 •1  2.68 kip/ft
wu • L 2.68 • 45
Vu    60.3 kip-ft
2 2
Vn   • 0.6 • d • tw • Fy  1.0 • 0.6 • 20.8 • 0.38 • 50  237.1 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The design is checked for the composite girder shown below. The deck is 3 in.
deep with 4 ½″ 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.

W24x76 P = 36K (Dead Load) Span, L = 45 ft
E = 29000 ksi P = 4.5K (SDL)
Fy = 50 ksi P = 45K (Live Load)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
Examples, Version 14.0, with the deflection calculation adapted to the provisions
of the Specification for Structural Steel Buildings –Fifteenth Edition.
Percent
Difference
Shear Stud Capacity Qn 21.54 21.54 0.00%
Shear Stud Distribution 24, 4, 24 26, 3, 26 7.70%
Bottom Flange Stress (ksi) 48.81 48.81 0.00%

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Percent
Difference
Vn (k) 315.5 315.5 0.00%
CONCLUSION
ETABS places three fewer shear studs than the AISC example because while the
beam is designed for 50% composite action in both the ETABS model and the
AISC example, the 50% of composite action is measured at different locations.
In the ETABS model, the target of 50% of composite action is achieved at the
beam mid-span, which is the point of maximum positive, bending moment,
whereas in the AISC example, the 50% target of composite action is achieved at
the beam third-points. The reader can check that the ETABS shear stud
distribution still provides adequate bending strength at the beam third points. The
live load deflection differs due to a difference in methodology. In the AISC
the beam moment of inertia, whereas in ETABS, it is computed based on the
beam equivalent moment of inertia given by Equation (C-I3-3) from the
Commentary on the Specification for Structural Steel Buildings –Fifteenth
Edition. According to that commentary, using the lower bound value of the
moment of inertia provides a conservative estimate of the deflection, while using
the equivalent moment of inertia results in a prediction of deflection roughly
equivalent to the statistical average of the example tests reviewed. According to
the commentary, the difference between the two methods is on average 16%,
which is consistent with the results reported here.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
Section:
W24x76
Asteel = 22.4 in2, Isteel = 2100 in4
Deck:
Shear Connectors:
d = ¾ in, h =4 ½ in, Fu = 65 ksi

 22.4 
w A •w  sq.ft .  • 490 pcf  76.2 plf
steel steel  144 
PD  (45 ft)(10 ft)(75 psf )  (50 plf )(45 ft) (0.001 kip / lb)  36kips
PL  (45 ft)(10 ft)(25 psf ) (0.001 kip/lb)  11.25 kips
1.2 wL2 L
Mu   1.2 PD  1.6 PL 
8 3
0.076 • 30 2
30
 1.2  1.2 • 36 +1.6 • 11.25  622.3 kip-ft
8 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
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 n  Cb b M px  b BF ( Lb  Lp ) 

 1.0 750  22.6 • 10  6.78    677.2 kip-ft
0.0762
5•
• 3604
PD L 3
5wD L 4
36.0 • 360 3
12
 nc      1.0
28EI 384 EI 28 • 29, 000 • 2,100 384 • 29, 000 • 2,100
Camber  0.8 • nc  0.8 in. which is rounded down to ¾ in.

P   (45 ft)(10 ft)(75 +10psf )  (50 plf)(45 ft) (0.001 kip/lb)  40.5kips
D
P  (45 ft)(10 ft)(100 psf )  (0.001 kip/lb)  45 kips
L
1.2wL2 L
Mu   (1.2 PD  1.6 PL )
8 3
1.2 • 76.22 • 30 2
30
  (1.2 • 40.5 +1.6 • 45)  1216.3 kip-ft
8 3
30.0 ft
b   7.5 ft  90 in.
eff 8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

C  Py  As • Fy  22.4 • 50  1,120 kips controls
Resistance of slab in compression
7.5 •12
Ac  beff • tc  (beff 2) • hr  (7.5 • 12) • 4.5  • 3  540 in
2
2
C  0.85 • f 'c Ac  0.85 • 4 • 540  1836 kips
C 1,120
a   3.66 in.
0.85 • beff • f 'c 0.85 • (7.5 •12) • 4
a 3.66
d1  (tc  hr )   (4.5  3)   5.67 in.
2 2
 d
M    C • d  P • 
n  1 y 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
Depth of compression block within slab

C 560
a   1.83 in.
0.85 • beff • f 'c 0.85 • (7.5 •12) • 4
a 1.83
d1  (tc  hr )   (4.5  3)   6.58 in.
2 2
Depth of compression block within steel section flange
Py  C 1,120  560
x   0.623 in.
2 • b f • Fy 2 • 8.99 • 50
d2  x / 2  0.311 in.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
M n  C • (d1  d 2 )  Py • (d3  d 2 )
  23.9 
 560 • (6.58  0.312)  1,120 •   0.312   12  1, 408 kip-ft
  2 
M n  0.9M n  0.9 •1, 408  1, 267.3 kip-ft

Qn  0.5 Asa f 'c Ec  Rg Rp Asa Fu
Asa  dsa 2 4  (0.75)2 4  0.442 in 2

fc '  4 ksi
E  wc1.5 f c '  1451.5 4  3, 490 ksi

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
Qn
n
Qn
560
  26 studs from each end to the mid-span
21.54
ETABS provides 24 studs from each end to the nearest concentrated load point on
each side, and adds 4 studs between the two load points to satisfy maximum stud
spacing requirement. 24 shear studs are provided between each concentrated load
point and the nearest girder end, and the resulting ultimate bending moment capacity
provided by these 24 shear studs is 1246 kip-ft which is greater than the locally
required bending moment capacity.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

n  E / Ec  29, 000 / 3, 644  8.0
Moment Arm
Transformed from
Slab 50.9 17.2 875 15,055 86
Deck ribs 17.0 13.45 228 3,069 13
W24x76 22.4 0 0 0 2,100
89.5 1,103 18,124 2,199
I x  I 0  Ay 2  2,199  18,124  20,323 in.4

1, 092
y  12.2 in.
89.5
2
Itr  I x  A • y  20,323  90.3 •12.22  6,831 in 4
I equiv  I s  Qn Py  Itr  I s   2,100  0.5  6,831  2,100   5, 446 in 4
PL L3 45.0 • (30 • 12)3

 LL    0.472 in.
28EI eff 28 • 29,000 • 5, 446
Bottom Flange Stress Check:

Maximum bending moments from un-factored service load:
P  (45 ft)(10 ft)(75psf )  (50 plf)(45 ft) (0.001 kip/lb)  36kips
wet dead

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
wL2 L
M wet dead   Pwet dead
8 3
0.076 • 30 2
30
  36 •  368.6 kip-ft  4423kip-in
8 3
Psdl live  (45 ft)(10 ft)(10  100 psf ) (0.001 kip/lb)  49.5 kips
L 30
M sdl live  Psdl live  49.5  495 kip-ft  5940 kip-in
3 3
Section modulus assuming full composite action:
I tr 6,831
Str    282.5in 3
d   23.9 
  y   12.2 
2   2 
Section modulus assuming partial composite action:
Seff  Ss  Qn / Py ( Str  Ss )  175.7  0.50(282.5  175.7)  251.3 in3
Maximum bottom flange stress:

M wet dead M sdl live
f bottom  f bottom (pre-composite)  f bottom (composite)  
Ss Seff
4423 5940
   48.81ksi
175.7 251.3

Pu  1.2 • PD  1.6 • PL  1.2 • 40.5  1.6 • 45  120.6 kip
1.2 • w • L 1.2 • 0.076 • 30
Vu   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

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AISC DG02 Example 001
STEEL BEAM WITH UNREINFORCED OPENING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A W24x55 section supports uniform loads wd = 0.607 kip/ft and wl = 0.800 kip/ft
on a 36-foot simple span. The beam is laterally braced throughout its length.
ASTM A36 steel is used. Check if an unreinforced 10x20 in. opening can be
placed at the third point of the span.
OPENING GEOMETRY
AISC DG02 Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Composite beam web openings.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results in this table are taken from the hand calculations presented
below. These calculations parallel and at times refine the calculations presented
in Example 1 from “Design Guide 2: Steel and Composite Beams with Web
Openings”, Design Guide Series Number 2, AISC 1990.
Percent
Difference
Required Strength Mu (kip-in) 3470 3470 0.00%
Required Strength Vu (kips) 12.05 12.05 0.00%
Bending Capacity Mm (kip-in) 3766 3766 0.00%
Vm bottom (kips) 16.28 16.28 0.00%
Vm top(kips) 44.07 44.07 0.00%
Shear CapacityVm (kips) 54.31 54.31 0.00%
Interaction Ratio 0.926 0.926 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC DG02 EXAMPLE 001.EDB
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an excellent comparison with the independent results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
Section:
W24x55, as defined in the Design Guide example and in the AISC LRFD
Manual 2nd Edition:
As = 16.2 in2, Z = 134.4 in3
Because newer AISC manuals list the depth of a W24x55 as 23.6 in, the ETABS
section definition is retrieved from the ETABS legacy section property tables.
Required Shear and Bending Strengths at Web Opening:

Loading:
wu  1.2wd  1.6wl  1.2 • 0.607  1.6 • 0.800  2.01kip/ft
Required shear and bending strengths at opening:
wu L 2.01 • 36
Vu    12.05kips
6 6
wu L2 2.01 • 362
Mu    289.2 kip-ft  3470 kip-in
9 9
Proportioning Guidelines:
Opening Proportions:
a0
23
h0
Opening parameter:
a0 6h0 20 6 • 10
p0      2  6 • 0.425  4.55  5.6
h0 d 10 23.57

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Compression tee depth:

st 0.5 • (23.57  10  2) 8.78
   0.372  0.15
d 23.57 23.57
Check that the depth of the bottom tee is such that the bottom tee shear capacity is
not zero:
sn 0.5 • (23.57  10  2) 4.78
   0.2  0.15
d 23.57 23.57
Tee dimensions:
a0 20
t b    4.18  12
sb 4.78
Buckling of tee shaped compression zone
a0 20
t    2.28  4
st 8.78
Maximum Moment Capacity of Beam at Web Opening:

For the unperforated section:
M p  Fy Z  36 • 134  4824 kip-in
At the web opening, using ASCE 23-97 Equation C3:

 h 
M m    M p  Fy As ( 0  abs(e)) 
 4 
 10 
 0.9  4824  36 • 10 • 0.395 • (  2)   3766 kip-in
 4 
Maximum Shear Capacity of Beam at Web Opening:

Shear Capacity of Bottom Tee:
Fy tw sbottom 36 • 0.395 • 4.785
Vp bottom    39.28kips
3 3
  0 given that the beam is not composite and the opening is not reinforced

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
6 6
Vm bottom  Vp bottom  • 39.28  16.28kips
b  3 4.18  3
Shear Capacity of the Top Tee:
Fy tw stop 36 • 0.395 • 8.785
Vp top    72.12 kips
3 3
6 6
Vm top  Vp bottom  • 72.12  44.07 kips
t  3 2.28  3
Total Shear Capacity:
Vm  (Vmbottom  Vmtop )  0.9 • (16.28  44.07)  54.31kips
Interaction Equation:
1/3
  V 3  M 3 
1/3
 12.05 3  3470 3  1/3
 u         0.2223  0.922   0.926
3
   
u
 Vm   M m    54.31   3766    

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
STEEL BEAM WITH REINFORCED OPENING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A concentric 11x20 in. opening must be placed in a W18x55 section at a location
where the factored shear is 30 kips and the factored moment is 300 kip-ft. The
beam is laterally braced throughout its length. A992Fy50 steel is used. Can an
unreinforced opening be placed? If not, what reinforcement is required?
OPENING GEOMETRY

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Difference
Required Strength Vu (kips) 30 30 0.00%
Unreinforced Mm (kip-in) 4509 4509 0.00%
Unreinforced Vm tee (kips) 13.32 13.32 0.00%
UnreinforcedVm (kips) 23.98 23.98 0.00%
Unreinforced Interaction Ratio 1.351 1.351 0.00%
Reinforced Mm (kip-in) 4831 4831 0.00%
Reinforced Vm tee (kips) 21.49 21.49 0.00%
ReinforcedVm (kips) 38.68 38.68 0.00%
Reinforced Interaction Ratio 0.958 0.958 0.00%
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
A992Fy50 Steel
Section:
Manual 2nd Edition:
As = 16.2 in2, Z = 112.4 in3
a0
 1.82  3
h0
Opening parameter:
a0 6h0 20 6 • 11
p0      1.82  6 • 0.61  5.46  5.6
h0 d 11 18.11
Tee depth:
sb st 0.5 • (18.11  11) 3.56
    0.196  0.15
d d 18.11 18.11
Tee dimensions:
a0 20
b t    5.63  12
s 3.56
Buckling of tee shaped compression zone:
 t  5.63  4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Mu 3600
  6.63  20
Vu d 30 • 18.11
Maximum Moment Capacity of Beam at Web Opening without Reinforcement:

For the unperforated section:
M p  Fy Z  50 • 112  5600kip-in
At the web opening, using ASCE 23-97 Equation C3:

 h 
M m    M p  Fy As ( 0  abs(e)) 
 4 
 11 
 0.9 5600  50 • 11 • 0.39 • ( )   4509 kip-in
 4 
Maximum Shear Capacity of Beam at Web Opening without Reinforcement:

Shear Capacity of Bottom and Top Tees:
Fy tw s 50 • 0.39 • 3.555
Vp bottom  Vp top    40.02 kips
3 3
  0 given that the beam is not composite and the opening is not reinforced
6 6
Vm bottom  Vp bottom  • 40.02  13.32 kips
 3 5.63  3
Vm  (Vmbottom  Vmtop )  0.9 • 26.64  23.98kips
Interaction Equation without Reinforcement:

1/3
  V 3  M 3 
1/3
 30 3  3600 3  1/3
 u         1.2513  0.798   1.351
3
   
u
 Vm   M m    23.98   4509    
Therefore, the opening needs to be reinforced.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Maximum Moment Capacity of Beam at Web Opening with Reinforcement:

Try 1.733 in x 3/8 in plate reinforcement on top and bottom of opening:
Awr = 0.65 in2
As  h0tw  2 Awr  11 • 0.39  2 • 0.65  2.99in 2
Since e = 0, e  Awr / tw ASCE 23-97 Equation C4 applies:
  h2  
M m  M p  Fy tw  0  h0 • abs(e)  e 2   Awr h0   M p
  4  
 112 
 5600  50 0.39  0.65 • 11  5367.6 kip-in  5600 kip-in
 4 
M m  0.9 • 5367.6  4831kip-in
Maximum Shear Capacity of Beam at Web Opening with Reinforcement:

Shear Capacity of Bottom and Top Tees:
Fy tw s 50 • 0.39 • 3.555
Vp bottom  Vp top    40.02 kips
3 3
Awr 0.65
ss  3.555   3.51
2b f 2 • 7.53
a0 20
   5.70
s 3.51
Distance from outside edge of flange to centroid reinforcement:
3
d r  3.555   3.368 in.
16
Axial force in opening reinforcement:
Fy twa0
Pr  Fy Awr 
2 3
 50 • 0.65  32.5kips  113kips
2 Pr d r 2 • 32.5 • 3.368
   1.54
Vp s 40.02 • 3.555

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
6 6  1.54
Vm bottom  Vm top  Vp  • 40.02  21.49 kips
 3 5.70  3
Vm  (Vmbottom  Vmtop )  0.9 • 2 • 21.49  38.68kips
1/3
  V 3  M 3 
1/3
 30 3  3600 3  1/3
 u         0.7753  0.745   0.958
3
   
u
   
 Vm   M m  
  38.68   4830  

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPOSITE BEAM WITH UNREINFORCED OPENING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Simply supported composite beams form the floor system of an office building.
The 36-ft beams are spaced 8 ft apart and support uniform loads of wd =
0.608 kip/ft and wl = 0.800 kip/ft. The slab has a total thickness of 4 in. and will
be placed on metal decking. The deck has 2 in. ribs on 12 in. centers transverse to
the steel beam. An A36 W21x44 steel section and normal weight concrete (wc =
145 pcf and f c  3 ksi. ) will be used. The beam will be shored during construction.
Can an unreinforced 11x22 in. opening be placed at the quarter point of the span?
OPENING GEOMETRY

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Difference
Required Strength Mu (kip-ft) 244.1 244.2 0.04%
Shear Stud Capacity Qn (kips) 21.04 21.04 0.00%
Pc (kips) 189.4 189.4 0.00%
Bending Capacity Mm (k-ft) 288.0 288.0 0.00%
Vm bottom (kips) 13.7 13.7 0.00%
Pch (kips) 164.7 164.7 0.00%
Pcl (kips) 143.7 143.7 0.00%
Vm top(kips) 22.7 22.7 0.00%
Shear CapacityVm (kips) 30.9 30.9 0.00%
Interaction Ratio 0.932 0.932 0.00%
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
Ec = 3,024 ksi, f c  3 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf
Section:
Manual 2nd Edition:
As = 13 in2, Z = 95.4 in3
Deck:
tc = 2 in., hr = 2 in., sr =12 in., wr = 6 in.
Shear Studs:
d = ¾ in, h =3 ½ in, Qn  0.5 Asc f c' Ec  0.5 • 0.442 3 • 3024  21.04 kips

Loading:
wu  1.2wd  1.6wl  1.2 • 0.608  1.6 • 0.800  2.01kip/ft
wu L 2.01 • 36
Vu    18.1kips
4 4
3wu L2 3 • 2.01 • 362
Mu    244.2 kip-ft
32 32

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
a0
23
h0
Opening parameter:
a0 6h0 22 6 • 11
p0      2  6 • 0.53  5.18  6
h0 d 11 20.66
st 0.5 • (20.66  11) 4.83
   0.234  0.15
d 20.66 20.66
Tee dimensions:
a0 22
b t    4.55  12
st 4.83
Maximum Moment Capacity of Beam at Web Opening:

Compression Force in the Concrete:
Pc  0.85 f c'beff tc  0.85 • 3 • 96 • 2  489 kips
Pc  NQn  9 • 21.04  189.4 kips controls
Asn  As  h0tw  13  11 • 0.35  9.15in 2

Pc  Fy Asn  36 • 9.15  329.4 kips
Available Flexural Strength:

Pc 189.4
a   0.77 in.
0.85 • beff • f 'c 0.85 • 96 • 3
a 0.77
d t h   22  3.61 in.
1 c r 2 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Fy Asn  Pc 329.4  189.4
Csteel    70 kips
2 2
The plastic neutral axis is within the top flange. The depth of the compression force
in the steel section is equal to:
Csteel 70
x •tf  • 0.45  0.3in.
C flange 105.3
Distance d2 from the centroid of the compression force in the steel section to the top
of the steel section:
x 0.3
d2    0.15in.
2 2
Maximal nominal flexural capacity of composite beam at opening location:
M n    Pc (d1  d 2 )  Fy Asn (d 3  d 2 )  Fy (h o tw  2 Awr )e  
 20.66 
 0.85 189.4 • (3.61  0.15)  36 • 9.15 • (  0.15)  0
 2 
 3, 456 kip-in = 288.0 kip-ft
Maximum Shear Capacity at Web Opening:

Plastic Capacity of Bottom and Top Tees:
Fy tw s 36 • 0.35 • 4.83
Vp bottom  Vp top    35.1kips
3 3
Shear Capacity of the Bottom Tee:
  0 given that the bottom tee is not composite and is not reinforced
6 6
 3 4.55  3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Asn 9.15
Ast    4.58in 2
2 2
Force in the concrete at the high moment end of the opening:
Pch  0.85 f c'beff tc  0.85 • 3 • 96 • 2  489 kips
Pch  NQn  9 • 21.04  189.4 kips
Pch  Fy Ast  36 • 4.58  164.7 kips controls
Force in the concrete at the low moment end of the opening:

Pcl =Pcl -N0Qn  164.7  1 • 21.0  143.7 kips
Distances from top of steel section to centroids of concrete forces at the high and low
moment ends of the opening:
Pch 143.7
d h  tc  hr   2.0  2.0   3.66in.
'
1.7 f c beff 1.7 • 3 • 96
Pcl 143.7
d l  hr   2.0   2.29in.
'
1.7 f c beff 1.7 • 3 • 96
 ratio:
2 Pr d r  Pch d h  Pcl d l 0  164.7 • 3.66  143.7 • 2.29
   1.614
Vp st 35.1 • 4.83
Shear capacity:
6 6  1.614
Vmt top  Vpt  35.1  22.7 kips
 3 4.55  3
Vm  Vmbottom  Vmtop  13.7  22.7  36.4 kips
Vm  0.85 • 36.4  30.94 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
1/3
  V 3  M 3 
1/3
 18.1 3  244.1 3  1/3
 u         0.5853  0.845   0.932
3
   
u
 Vm   M m    30.94   288    

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPOSITE BEAM WITH REINFORCED OPENING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A 40-ft simply supported composite girder supports factored loads of 45 kips at

its third points. The slab has a total thickness of 5-1/2 in. and is cast on metal
decking with 3 in. deep ribs that are parallel to the A36 W18x60 steel beam. The
ribs are spaced 12 in., and the girders are spaced 40 ft. apart. The concrete is
normal weight; f c  4 ksi. . The design calls for pairs of pairs of 3/4x5 in. shear
studs spaced every foot in the outer third of the girder, starting 6 in. from the
support, and single studs every foot in the middle third of the girder. will be
shored during construction. Can a concentric unreinforced 10x24 in. opening be
placed 6-1/2 ft. from the support? If not, how much reinforcement is required?
OPENING GEOMETRY

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Difference
Shear Stud Capacity Qn (kips) 26.0 26.0 0.00%
Pc (kips) 364.0 364.0 0.00%
Unreinforced Mm (kip-in) 5306 5306 0.00%
Unreinforced Vm bottom (kips) 11.52 11.52 0.00%
Unreinforced Pch (kips) 178.6 178.6 0.00%
Unreinforced Pcl (kips) 126.6 126.6 0.00%
Unreinforced Vm top(kips) 37.7 37.7 0.00%
UnreinforcedVm (kips) 41.81 41.81 0.00%
Unreinforced Interaction Ratio 1.179 1.179 0.00%
Reinforced Mm (kip-in) 5712 5712 0.00%
Reinforced Vm bottom (kips) 18.17 18.17 0.00%
Reinforced Pch (kips) 205.6 205.6 0.00%
Reinforced Pcl (kips) 153.6 153.6 0.00%
Reinforced Vm top(kips) 50.06 50.06 0.00%

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Percent
Difference
ReinforcedVm (kips) 57.99 57.99 0.00%
Reinforced Interaction Ratio 0.907 0.907 0.00%
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 36 ksi, steel = 490 pcf
Ec = 3,492 ksi, f c  4 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf
Section:
Manual 2nd Edition:
As = 17.6 in2, Z = 123 in3
Deck:
tc = 2.5 in., hr = 3 in., sr =12 in., wr = 6 in.
Shear Studs:
d = ¾ in, h =3 ½ in, Qn  0.5 Asc f c' Ec  0.5 • 0.44 4 • 3492  26.0 kips
The shear stud distribution was set at one shear stud every 6 in. on average in the
composite beam design overwrites of the ETABS model beam. The minimum
shear stud longitudinal spacing was set at 12 in. in the ETABS model composite
beam design preferences so that the shear studs would occur in pairs along the
length of the beam, as they do in the Design Guide example.

Loading:
As 17.6 490
wu  1.2wd  1.2  steel  1.2 • •  0.072 kip/ft
144 144 1000
Pu  44.95kips, value chosen to better match the example factored bending moment.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

l
Vu  Pu  wu (  x )  44.95 • 6.5  0.072 • (20  6.5)  45.93kips
2
wu x( L  x ) 0.072 • 6.5 • (40  6.5)

M u  Pu x   45 • 6.5   300 kip-ft  3600 kip-in
2 2
a0 24
  2.4  3
h0 10
Opening parameter:
a0 6h0 24 6 • 10
p0      2.4  6 • 0.55  5.7  6
h0 d 10 18.24
st 0.5 • (18.24  10) 4.12
   0.226  0.15
d 18.24 18.24
Tee dimensions:
a0 24
b t    5.83  12
st 4.12
Maximum Moment Capacity of Beam at unreinforced Web Opening:

Pc  0.85 f c'beff te  0.85 • 4 • 120 • 4  1632 kips
Pc  NQn  14 • 26.0  364.0kips controls
Asn  As  h0tw  17.6  10 • 0.415  13.45in 2

Pc  Fy Asn  36 • 13.45  484.2 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Pc 364
a   0.89 in.
0.85 • beff • f 'c 0.85 • 120 • 4
a 0.89
d  t  h   2.5  3   5.05 in.
1 c r 2 2
Fy Asn  Pc 36 • 13.45  364
Csteel    60.1 kips
2 2
C flange  b f • t f • Fy  7.577 • 0.695 • 36  189 kips
Csteel 60.1
x •tf  • 0.695  0.22in.
C flange 189
x 0.22
d2    0.11in.
2 2
 18.24 
 0.85 364 • (5.05  0.11)  36 • 13.45 • (  0.11)  0
 2 
 5,306 kip-in = 442.2 kip-ft
Maximum Shear Capacity at unreinforced Web Opening:

Fy tw s 36 • 0.415 • 4.12
Vp bottom  Vp top    35.5kips
3 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

  0 given that the bottom tee is not composite and is not reinforced
6 6
 3 5.83  3
Asn 13.45
Ast    6.725in 2
2 2
Force in the concrete at the high moment end of the opening:
Pch  0.85 f c'beff te  0.85 • 4 • 120 • 4  1632 kips
Pch  NQn  14 • 26.0  364 kips
Pch  Fy Ast  36 • 6.725  242.1kips controls

Force in the concrete at the low moment end of the opening:
Pcl =Pcl -N0Qn  242.1  2 • 26.0  190.1kips
Distances from top of steel section to centroids of concrete forces at the high and low
moment ends of the opening:
Pch 242.1
d h  tc  hr   2.5  3.0   5.20in.
'
1.7 f c beff 1.7 • 4 • 120
Pcl 190.1
dl    0.47in.
1.7 f c beff / 2 1.7 • 4 • 60
'
 ratio:
2 Pr d r  Pch d h  Pcl d l 0  242.2 • 5.2  190.1 • 0.47
   7.99
Vp st 35.5 • 4.12
6
Since   1 and the values of Pch, Pcl,, dh., and dl, need to be recomputed
 3
based on ASCE 23-29 Equation 10b:
Pch  Fy t f (b f  tw )  Awr   36 • 0.695 • (7.555  0.415)  0  178.6kips
Pcl =Pcl -N0Qn  178.6  2 • 26.0  126.6kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Pch 178.6
d h  tc  hr   2.5  3.0   5.28in.
'
1.7 f c beff 1.7 • 4 • 120
Pcl 126.6
dl    0.31in.
1.7 f c beff / 2 1.7 • 4 • 60
'
2 Pr d r  Pch d h  Pcl d l 0  178.6 • 5.28  126.6 • 0.31

   6.17
Vp st 35.5 • 4.12
6
Since   1 , and the shear capacity Vm top, is given by ASCE 23-97
 3
Equation 8:
 6.17
Vmt top  Vpt  35.5  37.67 kips
 5.83
Vm  Vmbottom  Vmtop  11.52  37.67  49.19 kips
Vm  0.85 • 49.2  41.81kips

Interaction Equation at unreinforced Web Opening:
1/3
  V 3  M 3 
1/3
 45.9 3  3600 3  1/3
 u         1.0983  0.679   1.179
3
   
u
   
 Vm   M m  
  41.8   5306  
The opening requires reinforcement.
Maximum Moment Capacity of Beam at reinforced Web Opening:
The Design Guide example next tries adding a 2in x3/8in plate (Awr = 0.75in2) above and
below the opening.
Pc  0.85 f c'beff te  0.85 • 4 • 120 • 4  1632 kips, unchanged from above
Pc  NQn  14 • 26.0  364.0kips, still controls
Asn  As  h0tw  2 Awr  17.6  10 • 0.415  2 • 0.75  14.95in 2

Pc  Fy Asn  36 • 14.95  538.2 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Pc 364
a   0.89 in.
0.85 • beff • f 'c 0.85 • 120 • 4
a 0.89
d  t  h   2.5  3   5.05 in.
1 c r 2 2
Fy Asn  Pc 36 • 14.95  364
Csteel    87.1 kips
2 2
C flange  b f • t f • Fy  7.577 • 0.695 • 36  189 kips
Csteel 87.1
x •tf  • 0.695  0.32in.
C flange 189
x 0.32
d2    0.16in.
2 2
 18.24 
 0.85 364 • (5.05  0.16)  36 • 14.95 • (  0.16)  0
 2 
 5,712 kip-in = 476 kip-ft
Maximum Shear Capacity at reinforced Web Opening:

Fy tw s 36 • 0.415 • 4.12
Vp bottom  Vp top    35.5kips, unchanged from above
3 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Awr 0.75
ss  4.12   4.07
2b f 2 • 7.555
a0 24
   5.9
s 4.07
Distance from outside edge of flange to centroid reinforcement:
3
d r  4.12   3.93 in.
16
Axial force in opening reinforcement:
 Ft a   36 • 0.415 • 10 
Pr   Fy Awr  y w 0    36 • 0.75    27 kips
 2 3   2 3 
2 Pr d r 2 • 27 • 3.93
   1.45
Vp s 35.5 • 4.12
6 6  1.45
 3 5.9  3
The opening reinforcement increases the value of  first calculated for the top
tee. Therefore  >  and the values of Pch, Pcl,, dh., and dl, need to be computed based
on the restriction set forth in ASCE 23-29 Equation 10b:
Pch  Fy t f (b f  tw )  Awr   36 0.695 • (7.555  0.415)  0.75  205.6kips
Pcl =Pcl -N0Qn  205.6  2 • 26.0  153.6kips

Pch 205.6
d h  tc  hr   2.5  3.0   5.25in.
'
1.7 f c beff 1.7 • 4 • 120
Pcl 153.6
dl    0.38in.
1.7 f c beff / 2 1.7 • 4 • 60
'
2 Pr d r  Pch d h  Pcl d l 2 • 27 • 3.93  205.6 • 5.25  153.6 • 0.38

   8.43
Vp st 35.5 • 4.12

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
a0 24
   5.83
st 4.12
 8.43
Vmt top  Vpt  35.5  51.4 kips
 5.83
However, the value of Vmt top cannot exceed the plastic shear capacity of the top tee:
Avc  3tste  3 • 5.5 • 4  66in 2
Vmt top  Vm ( sh)  Vpt  0.11 f c' Avc  35.5  0.11 • 4 • 66  50.06 kips

Vm  Vmbottom  Vmtop  18.17  50.06  68.23kips
Vm  0.85 • 68.23  57.99 kips

Interaction Equation at reinforced Web Opening:
1/3
  V 3  M 3 
1/3
 45.9 3  3600 3  1/3
 u         0.793  0.63   0.907
3
   
u
    58.0   5712    

Vm   M m  


PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AISC 360 DG11 2nd Edition Example 001
FLOOR VIBRATIONS – TYPICAL EXTERIOR BAY OF AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH HOT-ROLLED

FRAMING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The design is checked for a typical exterior bay of the floor system shown below.
The structural system supports “paper office” build out. The spandrel girder is
supported by the exterior cladding for vibration analysis purposes. The deck is
5¼-in. total depth with a 3¼-in. lightweight (110 pcf) concrete cover with a
compressive strength of 4 ksi. The applied loads are the weight of the structure, a
4 psf superimposed dead load and an 11 psf live load. The damping ratio, , is
taken as 0.03.

Beam: W18x35 w = 4 psf (SDL) Beam Span, L = 35 ft
Girder: W21x50 w = 11psf (Live Load) Girder Span, L = 30 ft
Column: W14x82
Steel: ASTM A992 Fy50

Composite beam vibration analysis, including:
➢ Member deflections relevant to vibration.
➢ Effective panel weight of beams and girders.
AISC 360 DG11 2nd Edition Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
➢ Fundamental natural frequency of beams, girders, and their combined action.

➢ Peak acceleration of a composite floor.
RESULTS COMPARISON
in Example 4.1 from “Design Guide 11: Vibrations of Steel-Framed Structural
Systems Due to Human Activity (Second Edition)”, Design Guide Series Number
11, AISC 2016.
Percent
Difference
Floor Width (ft) 150 150 0.00%
Floor Length (ft) 105 105 0.00%
Deck Ieff,deck (in4) 106.3 106.3 0.00%
Beam Ieff,j (in4) 1833.8 1833.8 0.00%
Girder Ieff,g (in4) 3275.8 3275.8 0.00%
Beam Deflection j (in) 0.378 0.378 -0.00%
Girder Deflection g (in) 0.324 0.325 -0.31%
Reduced Girder Deflection 0.283 0.284 -0.32%

’g (in)
Beam Frequency fj (Hz) 5.75 5.75 0.00%
Girder Frequency fg (Hz) 6.21 6.20 0.16%
Floor Frequency fn (Hz) 4.22 4.22 0.00%
Panel Weight W (kip) 111.88 111.89 0.01%
Peak Acceleration ap/g 0.00442 0.00442 0.00%

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Percent
Difference
D/C Peak Acceleration 0.884 0.884 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC DG11 2ND EDITION EXAMPLE 001.EDB
CONCLUSION
The results show an excellent comparison with the independent results. The
girder deflection is slightly different, which carries over into a slight difference in
girder frequency.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
Esteel = 29,000 ksi, ρsteel = 490 pcf
4000 psi lightweight concrete
fc  4 ksi, ρconcrete = 110 pcf
Econcrete  wconcrete
1.5
• f 'c  1101.5 • 4  2307.38ksi
Econcrete dynamic  1.35 • Econcrete  1.35 • 2307.38ksi  3114.96ksi
Esteel 29000ksi
n   9.3
Econcrete dynamic 3114.96ksi
Frame Object Sections:

Beam: W18x35
dbeam = 17.7 in, Abeam = 10.3 in2, Ibeam = 510 in4
wbeam  Abeam •  steel  10.3in 2 • 490 pcf  35plf
Girder: W21x50
dgirder = 20.8 in, Agirder = 14.7 in2, Igirder = 984 in4
wgirder  Agirder •  steel  14.7in 2 • 490 pcf  50 plf
Column: W14x82
dcolumn = 14.3 in
Deck Geometry:
ds = 5.25 in, hr = 2 in
tc  d s  hr  5.25in  2in  3.25in
sr =12 in, br,top =7 in, br,bottom =5 in

br  br ,average  (br top  br bottom ) / 2  (7in  5in) / 2  6in

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Weight of deck components:

wdeck,steel = 2.04 psf
wdeck ,concrete  concrete • (tc  hr )  110pcf • (3.25in  2in)  38.96psf
wdeck  wdeck ,steel  wdeck ,concrete  2.04 psf  38.96psf  41psf
Layout:
Beams (N-S):
Beam spacing, sbeam = 10 ft = 120 in
Beam span, Lj = 35 ft = 420 in
# of bays = 3
floor length  # of bays • L j  3 • 35ft  105ft
Girders (E-W):
Girder span, Lg = 30 ft = 360 in
Girder clear span, Lg clear  Lg  2 • d column  360in  2 • 14.3in  345.7 in

2 2
# of bays = 5
floor width  # of bays • Lg  5 • 30ft  150ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Deck over Beam transformed Moment of Inertia:

Effective width:
beff  0.4 • L j  sbeam  0.4 • 35ft  10ft  14 ft  10ft
= 10ft  120in
While the original DG11 example computes the moment of inertia of the deck based
on its average thickness, ETABS computes it based on its actual geometry. The same
is done here.
Deck components areas and centroids measured from the bottom of the deck:
Aslab  tc • beff  3.25in • 120in  390in 2
tc 3.25in
yslab  hr   2in   3.63in
2 2
(br top  br bottom ) / 2 6in
Aribs  hr • • beff  2 in • • 120in  120in 2
sr 12 in
hr • (2 • br top  br bottom ) 2 • (2 • 7in  5in)

yribs    1.06in
3 • (br top  br bottom ) 3 • (7in  5in)
Moment of inertia:
Moment Arm,
Area Ay Ay2 I0
Element y, from Bottom
A (in2) (in.3) (in,4) (in.4)
of Deck (in.)
Slab 390 3.63 1,414 5,125 343.3
Deck ribs 120 1.06 126 134 39.6
510 1,540 5,259 382.9
I x  I 0  Ay 2  383in4  5,529in 4  5,642in 4
1,540in 3
y  3.02 in.
510in 2
2
I deck  I x  A • y  5,642  510 • 3.022  988,7 in 4
I deck 988.7in 3
I deck transformed    106.3in 3
n 9.3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Beam Properties:
Transformed Beam Moment of Inertia:
Aslab 390in 2
Aslabtransformed    41.9in 2
n 9.3
d beam t 17.7 in 3.25in
yc ,slabbeam   hr  c   2 in   12.5in from the center of
2 2 2 2
the beam steel section.
Transformed Moment Arm,
Ay Ay2 I0
Element Area y, from steel
(in.3) (in,4) (in.4)
A (in2) centroid(in.)
Slab 41.9 12.5 522.9 6,527 36.9
W18x35 10.3 0 0 0 510
52.2 522.9 6,527 546.9
I x  I 0  Ay 2  546.9in.4  6,257in.4  7,074 in.4
522.9 in 3
y  10.02 in.
52.24in 2
2
I j  I x  A • y  7,074  52.2 • 10.022  1833.8 in 4
Effective Beam Panel Beam Weight:

The transformed slab moment of inertia per unit width, Ds, is equal to:
I deck transformed 106.3in 4 4
Ds    10.63 in
beff 10ft ft
The transformed beam moment of inertia per unit width, Dj, is equal to:
Ij 1833.8in 4 4
Dj    183.34 in
sbeam 10ft ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Since the beams are not parallel to a free edge, the factor Cj is equal to 2, and the
beam panel effective width, Bj, is equal to:
0.25
D  2
Bj  C j  s  • Lj  • floor width
D 3
 j 
0.25
 10.63 in 4 
2
 2• ft  • 35ft  • 150ft
 1833.8 in 4  3
 ft 
 34.35ft  100 ft
The distributed line load on the beam, wj, is the sum of the line load corresponding to
the self-weight of the beam, wj self, plus the line loads corresponding to the weight of
the deck, and to the distributed superimposed dead load and live load:
w j  w j self   wdeck  wSDL  wLL  • sbeam  35plf   41psf  4 psf  11psf  • 10ft
 595plf
The supported weight per unit of area of the beam, wbeam, is equal to the distributed
line load on the beam divided by the beam spacing:
wj 595plf
wbeam    59.5plf
sbeam 10ft
The effective beam panel weight, Wj, is given by DG11 Equation 4.2:
W j  C j • wbeam • B j • L j  1.5 • 59.5psf • 34.35ft • 35ft  107,304lb
Because the adjacent beam span, 35ft, is greater than 0.7 of the beam span and the
beam is shear connected to the girder, the weight of the beam panel has been
adjusted by a factor of 1.5 to account for continuity as explained in DG11 Section
4.1.2.
Beam Deflection and fundamental Frequency:
The beam deflection, j, is equal to:
5 • w j • L4j 5 • 595plf •  35ft 
4
j    0.378in
384 • Esteel • I j 384 • 29,000 ksi • 1833.5in 4
The fundamental frequency of the beam, fj, is given by DG11 Equation 3-3:
g 386 in
f j  0.18 •  0.18 • s2  5.75 Hz
j 0.378in

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Girder Properties:
Transformed Girder Moment of Inertia:
Effective widths:
beff slab  min  0.2 • Lg , 0.5 • L j ,left   min  0.2 • Lg , 0.5 • L j ,right 
 min  6ft,17.5ft   min  6ft,17.5ft   12 ft  144 in
beff slab 144 in

beff rib    72 in
2 2
Centroids, measured from the center of the girder steel section:
d girder tc 20.8in 3.25in
yc ,slab girder   hr    2 in   14.03in
2 2 2 2
d girder 20.8in
yc rib girder   yribs   1.06in  11.46in
2 2
Transformed deck properties:
tc • beff slab 3.25 • 144 in 2
Aslabtransformed    50.3in 2
n 9.3
hr • beff ,rib,transformed 2.0in • 72 in
Arib,transformed    15.5in 2
n 9.3
Moment of inertia:
Moment Arm
Transformed from
Slab 50.3 14.03 706 9,899 44.3
Deck ribs 15.5 11.46 177 2,032 5.1
W21x50 14.7 0 0 0 984
80.5 883 11,931 1033.4
I x  I 0  Ay 2  1033.4in4  11,931in 4  12,964 in 4
883in 3
y  11.0in.
80.5in 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
2
I g  I x  A • y  12,964  80.5 • 11.02  3,275.8 in 4
Effective Girder Panel Weight:

The transformed total moment of inertia per unit width of the girder, Dg, is equal to:
Ig 3275.8in 4 4
Dg    93.59 in
Lj 35ft ft
Since the beams frame into the girder web, the factor Cg for the girder is equal to 1.8
and, per DG11 Equation 4-4, the girder panel effective width is equal to:
0.25
D  2
Bg  Lg • Cg •  j   • floor length
D 3
 g 
0.25
 183.38 in 4 
2
 30ft • 1.8 •  ft   • 105ft
 93.59 in 4  3
 ft 
 63.89 ft  70ft
The total load supported by the girder, Wtotal,girder, is the sum of the total self-weight
of the girder plus four times the total reaction at the end of each of the beams
framing in, Pbeam on girder:
wj • Lj 595plf • 35ft
Pbeamon girder    10.413kip
2 2
50 plf 345.7 in
Wtotal girder  wgirder • Lgirder clear  4 • Pbeam on girder  •  4 • 10.413kip
1000l b/kip 12 in/ft
 43.09 kip
The supported weight per unit area of the girder, wg, is equal to the total load
supported by the girder divided by its tributary area, Atrib girder:
Atrib girder  2 • Atrib,beam  2 • sbeam • L j  2 • 10ft • 35ft  700sq.ft.
Wtotal girder 43.09 kip

wg    61.56 psf
Atrib girder 700sq.ft.
The effective panel girder weight, Wg, is given by DG11 Equation 4.2:
Wg  wg • Bg • Lg  61.56psf • 63.89ft • 30ft  117,992lb
Wg is not increased by 50% because the girder frames into columns.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Girder Deflection and fundamental Frequency:

The referenced example computes an approximate girder deflection assuming a
uniform load. To better match the ETABS results, a more accurate method is used
here.
The component of the girder deflection caused by its self-weight, g,self, is equal to:
5 • wgirder • Lg clear 4 5 • 50 plf •  345.7 in 
4
 g self    0.008in
384 • Esteel • I g 384 • 29000 ksi • 3275.8in 4
The component of the girder deflection caused by the reactions of the four beams
framing in, g,beams, is given by:
d column 14.3in
xBeamOnGirder  sbeam   120in   112.85in
2 2
2 • Pbeam on girder • xbeam on girder •  3 • L2g ,clear  4 • xBeamOnGirder
2

 g beam 
24 • E • I g


2 • 10.413kip • 112.85in • 3 •  345.7 in   4 • 112.85in 
2 2
  0.317 in
24 • 29, 000 ksi • 3, 275.8in 4
The girder deflection, g, is the sum of g,self plus g,beams:

 g   g self   g beam  0.008in  0.317in  0.325in
The fundamental frequency of the girder is given by DG11 Equation 3-3:
g 386 in 2
f g  0.18 •  0.18 • s  6.20Hz
g 0.325in
Combined Mode Properties:

Floor fundamental Frequency:
The floor fundamental frequency, fn, is given by DG11 Equation 3-4:
g 386 in 2
f n  0.18 •  0.18 • s  4.22 Hz
 j  g 0.378in  0.325in

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Effective combined Mode Panel Weight:

Because the girder span (30ft) is less than the panel width (32.3ft), the girder
deflection  g is reduced according to DG11 Equation 4.6:
 L   30 
 'g   0.5  girder  1 •  g   0.5   1 • 0.325 in  0.874 • 0.325 in
 Bj   34.35 
 
 0.284 in
The effective combined mode panel weight, W, is given by DG11 Equation 4-5:
j  'g
W  •Wj  • Wg
 j   'g  j   'g
0.378in 0.284 in
 • 107, 304 lb  • 117, 992 lb
0.378in  0.284 in 0.378in  0.284 in
 111,891lb
Evaluation:
Consistent with the original example, the damping ratio, , is taken as equal to 0.03.
The predicted peak acceleration, ap, is given by DG11 Equation 4.1:

ap Po • e 0.35• fn 65lb • e 0.35•4.217
   0.00442  0.44%
g  •W 0.03 • 111,881lb
ap must be less than the maximum acceptable acceleration, a0, which is given by
DG11 Table 4-1:
a0
 0.5%  0.005
g
The vibration demand/capacity ratio is equal to:
ap / g 0.0044
D    0.884
CWalking a0 / g 0.005

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.

UKB457x191x67 w = 6.67kN/m (Dead Load) Span, L = 12 m
E = 205,000 MPa w = 1.5kN/m (Construction)
Fy = 355 MPa w = 1.5kN/m (Superimposed Load)
w = 18.00kN/m (Live Load)
 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
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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 Designer’s Manual, Sixth Edition.
Percent
Difference
Construction Design 211.2 211.3 0.05%

Moment (kN-m)
Construction Ms (kN-m) 522.2 522.2 0.00%
Construction Deflection (mm) 29.9 29.9 0.00%
Design Moment (kN-m) 724.2 724.3 0.01%
Full Composite Mpc (kN-m) 968.9 968.9 0.00%
Partial Composite Mc (kN-m) 910.8 910.9 0.01%
Shear Stud Capacity Qn (kN) 57.6 57.6 0.00%
Live Load Deflection (mm) 33.2 33.2 0.00%
Applied Shear Force Fv (kN) 241.4 241.4 0.00%
Shear Resistance Pv (kN) 820.9 821.2 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: BS-5950-90 EXAMPLE 001.EDB
CONCLUSION
BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 2
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
S355 Steel:
E = 205,000 MPa, py = 355 MPa, γs = 7850 kg/m3
Light-weight concrete:
E = 24,855 MPa, fcu = 30 MPa, γc = 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
Self weight beam = 0.67 kN/m
Construction load = 0.5 kN/m2
Ceiling = 0.5 kN/m2
Partitions (live load) = 1.0 kN/m2
Occupancy (live load) = 5.0 kN/m2

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
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
wult construction • L2 11.74 • 122

=
M ult construction = = 211.3 kN-m
8 8
M s = S z • Py = 1, 471 • 103 • 355 • 10−6 = 522.2 kN-m
wconstruction = 2.0 • 3.0 + 0.67 = 6.67 kN/m
5 • wconstruction • L4 5 • 6.67 • 12, 0004

=δ = = 29.9 mm
384 • E • I 384 • 205, 000 • 29,380 • 104
= 0.8 •=
Camber δ 24 mm, which is rounded down to 20 mm

wult = 1.4 • 0.67 + (1.4 • 2.0 + 1.6 • 1 + 1.6 • 5 ) • 3.0 = 40.24 kN/m
wult • L2 40.24 • 122

=
M ult = = 724.3 kN-m
8 8
L 12,000
B=
e = = 3, 000 mm ≤ 3,000 mmm
4 4
Rc = 0.45 • f cu • Be • ( Ds − D p )= 0.45 • 30 • 3, 000 • (130 − 50 ) • 10−3= 3, 240 kN

Rs = Py = As • p y = 8,550 • 355 • 10−3 = 3, 035 kN controls

D R ( Ds − D p ) 
M=
pc Rs  + Ds − s  for Rs ≤ Rc
 2 Rc 2 
 453.6 3,035 80 
= 3,035  + 130 − • = • 10−3 968.9 kN-m
 2 3, 240 2 
BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 4
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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
Tensile Resistance of web:
Rw = tw • ( D − 2 • t f ) • p y = 8.5 • ( 453.6 − 2 • 12.7 ) • 355 • 10−3 = 1, 292 kN
As Rq > Rw, the plastic axis is in the steel flange, and
D  Rq ( Ds − D p )  ( Rs − Rq ) 2 t f
M c =Rs + Rq  Ds − −
2  Rc 2  Rf 4
( 3,035 − 2,189 ) 12.7 • 10−3

2
453.6  2,189 80 
= 3,035 • 10−3 + 2,1899 130 − •  • 10−3 −
2  3, 240 2  ( 3,035 − 1, 292 ) 4
= 910.9 kN-m

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:
br ( h − D p ) 150 ( 95 − 50 )
k = 0.6 • • = 0.6 • • = 1.62 but k ≤ 0.8
Dp Dp 50 50
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
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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:
Rq =2 • 19 • Q p =38 • 57.6 =2,189 kN
The second moment of area of the composite section, based on elastic properties, Ic
is given by:
Asteel • ( D+ Ds + D p ) beff • ( Ds − D p )
2 3
=
Ic + + I steel
4 • (1 + α e • r ) 12 • α e
Asteel 8,550
=r = = 0.0356
beff • ( Ds − D p ) 3,000 • (130 − 50 )
For light-weight concrete:
αs =10
α l =25
Proportion of total loading which is long term:
wdl + wsdl + 0.33 • wlive 6.67 + 1.5 + 0.33 • 18
=ρl = = 0.541
wdl + wsdl + wlive 6.67 + 1.5 + 18
α e = α s + ρl • ( α l − α s ) = 10 + 0.541 • ( 25 − 10 ) = 18.1
8,550 • ( 453.4 + 130 + 50 ) 3,000 • 803

2
=Ic + + 294 • 106

4 • (1 + 18.1 • 0.0356 ) 12 • 18.1
= ( 521 + 7 + 294 ) • 106= 822 • 106 mm 4
Live load deflection assuming full composite action:
BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 6
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
5 • 18 • (12,000 )
4
5 • wlive • L4
=δc = = 28.8 mm
384 • E • I c 384 • 205,000 • 822 • 106
Adjust for partial composite action:
5 • 18 • (12, 000 )
4
5 • wlive • L4
=δs =
384 • E • I c 384 • 205, 000 • 294 • 106
= 80.7 mm non-composite reference deflection
δ partial = δc + 0.3 • (1 − K ) • ( δ s − δc )
= 28.9 + 0.3 • (1 − 0.72 ) • ( 80.7 − 28.9 )= 33.2 mm

wult • L 40.24 • 12
=Fv = = 241.4 kN
2 2
Shear Resistance of Steel Section:
P = 0.6 • p y • Ds • tw = 0.6 • 355 • 453.4 • 8.5 • 10−3 = 820.9 kN

V
BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 7
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
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.

W460x74 w = 8.0kN/m (Dead Load) Span, L = 12 m
E = 205,000 MPa w = 2.5kN/m (Construction)
Fy = 345 MPa w = 4.0kN/m (Superimposed Load)

CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 1
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are referenced from the design example on page 5-25 of the
Handbook of Steel Construction, Tenth Edition.
Percent
Difference
Construction Design 247.4 247.5 0.04%

Moment (kN-m)
Construction Ms (kN-m) 512.3 512.3 0.00%
Design Moment (kN-m) 755.8 756 0.02%
Full Composite Mrc (kN-m) 946.7 946.7 0.00%
Partial Composite Mrc (kN-m) 783.6 783.6 0.00%
Shear Stud Capacity Qn (kN) 68.7 68.7 0.00%
Bottom Flange Tension (MPa) 267.2 267.1 0.04%
Design Shear Force Vf (kN) 251.9 251.9 0.00%
Shear Resistance Vr (kN) 842.9 842.9 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: CSA-S16-09 EXAMPLE 001.EDB
CONCLUSION
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
E = 200,000 MPa, Fy = 345 MPa, γs = 7850 kg/m3
Normal weight concrete
E = 23,400 MPa, fcu = 20 MPa, γc = 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
Superimposed dead load = 1.33 kN/m2
Live load = 6.0 kN/m2

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
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
Moment Capacity:
M s = Z s • 0.9 • Fy =1, 650 • 103 • 0.9 • 345 • 10−6 = 512.3 kN-m
wconstruction = 2.42 • 3.0 + 0.73 = 8.0 kN/m
5 • wconstruction • L4 5 • 8.0 •12, 0004

=δ = = 32.4 mm
384 • E • I 384 • 200, 000 • 33, 300 •104
= 0.8 •=
Camber δ 25.9 mm, which is rounded down to 25 mm

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
L 12,000
=
bl = = 3, 000 mm ≤ 3,000 mmm
4 4
f c′ 0.8125
α=1 0.85 − 0.0015 • =
C 'r = α1 • Φ c • t • b f • f c′ = 0.8125 • 0.65 • 65 • 3,000 • 25 • 10−3 = 2,574 kN controls

Φ • As • F=
y 0.9 • 9,450 • 345 • 10−=
3
2,934 kN
Depth of compression block within steel section top flange:
=x
(Φ • As • Fy − C ' r ) 2
=
( 2,934
=
− 2,547 ) • 103 2
3.05 mm
Φ • Fy • b f 0.9 • 345 • 190
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4

 t x d x
M rc= C 'r •  h r + c +  + Φ • As • Fy •  − 
 2 2  2 2
 65 3   457 3 
= 2,574 •  75 + +  • 10−3 + 2,934 •  −  • 10−=
3
946.7 kN-m
 2 2  2 2

Qr = 0.4 • Rc = 0.4 • 2,574 = 1,031 kN
Qr 1,031 • 103
=a = = 26 mm
α1 • Φ c • beff • f c′ 0.8125 • 0.65 • 3,000 • 25
Compression force within steel section:
Cr = ( 2,934 − 1,031) 2 =
( Py − Qr ) 2 = 951.6 kN
Tensile resistance of one flange:
F = Φ • b • t • F = 0.9 • 190 • 14.5 • 345 • 10−3 = 855.4 kN

flange f f y
Tensile resistance of web:
F = 0.9 395 • 9 • 345 • 10−3 =

Φ • T • t • F =• 1,103.8 kN
web w y
Tensile resistance of one fillet area:
Ffillet= (P − 2 • F
y flange − Fweb ) 2= ( 2,934 − 2 • 855.4 − 1,103.8) 2= 59.8 kN
Compression force in web:

Cweb =Cr − Fflange − Ffillet =951.6 − 855.4 − 59.7 =36.4 kN
Depth of compression block in web:
Cweb 36.4
x= • T= • 395= 13 mm
Fweb 1,103.8
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
Location of centroid of compressive force within steel section measured from top of
steel section:
0.5 • t f • Fflange + ( t f + 0.5 • rfillet ) • Ffillet + ( t f + rfillet + 0.5 • x ) • C web
d2 =
Cr
0.5 • 14 • 855 + (14 + 0.5 • 16.5) • 60 + (14 + 16.5 + 0.5 • 44 ) • 36.4
= 9.4 mm
951.6
 a  d 
M rc = Qr •  h r + tc − + d 2  + Py •  − d 2 
 2  2 
 26   457 
= 1,031 •  75 + 65 − + 9.4  • 10−3 + 2,934 •  − 9.4  • 10−=
3
783.6 kN-m
 2   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
=n E=
Ec 200, 000 23,=
400 8.55

Element A (mn2) y (mm) (103 mm3) (106 mm4) (106 mm4)
Slab 22,815 336 7,666 2,576 8
W460x74 9,450 0 0 0 333
32,265 7,666 2,576 341
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
I x =I 0 + Ay 2 =341 • 106 + 2,576 • 106 =2,917 • 106 mm 4
7, 666 • 106
=y = 238 mm
32, 265
2
I tr = I x − A • y = 2,917 • 106 − 32, 265 • 2382 = 1, 095 • 106 mm 4
I s + 0.85 p 0.25 ( I tr − I s )
I eff =
= 333 + 0.85 • 0.400.25 • (1,095 − 333)
= 848 • 106 mm 4
5 • 18 • (12,000 )
4
5wL L4
∆ LL= 1.15 • = 1.15 • = 32.9 mm
384 EI eff 384 • 200,000 • 848 • 106
Bottom Flange Tension:
Stress in tension flange due to specified load acting on steel beam alone:
M1 8 • 120002
=
f1 = = 98.6 MPa
S x 8 • 1460 • 103
Bottom section modulus based on transformed elastic moment of inertia assuming,
per the original example, full composite action:
I tr 1,095 • 106
=St = = 1350 mm
d
( + y) (228.5 + 237.6)
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
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4

wfactored • L 42 • 12
=Vf = = 252 kN
2 2
Vr =Φ • Aw • Fs =0.9 • d • tw • 0.66 • Fy =0.9 • 457 • 9 • 0.66 • 345 =842.9 kN
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 1
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3

UKB457x191x74 w = 8.43kN/m (Dead Load) Span, L = 12 m
E = 205,000 MPa w = 2.25kN/m (Construction) Beam spacing, b =3 m
fy = 355 MPa w = 1.5kN/m (Superimposed Load)

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 Designer’s Manual, Seventh Edition.
Percent
Difference
Construction MEd (kN-m) 250.4 250.4 0.00%
Construction Ma,pl,Rd (kN-m) 587 587 0.00%
Design Moment (kN-m) 628.4 628.4 0.01%
Full Composite Mpc (kN-m) 1020 1020 0.00%
Partial Composite Mc (kN-m) 971.2 971.2 0.00%
Shear Stud Capacity PRd Input 52.0 NA
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 2
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
Percent
Difference
Required Strength VEd (kN) 209.5 209.5 0.00%
Vpl,Rd (kN) 843 843 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: EC-4-2004 EXAMPLE 001.EDB
CONCLUSION
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
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
S 355 Steel:
E = 210,000 MPa, fy = 355 MPa, partial safety factor γa = 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
Ceiling = 0.5 kN/m2
Partitions (live load) = 1.0 kN/m2
Occupancy (live load) = 4.0 kN/m2
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 4
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3

wfactored construction = 1.25 • (2.567 • 3.0 + 0.73) + 1.5 • 0.75 • 3.0 = 13.91 kN/m
wfactored construction • L2 13.91 • 122

=
M Ed = = 250.4 kN-m
8 8
Moment Capacity:
M a , pl ,Rd = W pl • f d = 1,653 • 103 • 355 • 10−6 = 587 kN-m
wconstruction= 2.567 • 3.0 + 0.73= 8.43 kN/m
5 • wconstruction • L4 5 • 8.43 • 12,0004

=δ = = 32.5 mm
384 • E • I ay 384 • 210,000 • 33,319 • 104
= 0.8 •=
Camber δ 26 mm, which is rounded down to 25 mm

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
wfactored • L2 34.91 • 122

=
M Ed = = 628.4 kN-m
8 8
2 • L 2 • 12
=
beff = = 3m
8 8
0.85 • f ck
Rc= • beff • hc= 0.85 • (25 /1.5) • 3, 000 • 60 • 10−3= 2,550 kN controls
γc
Resistance of steel section in tension:
Rs = f yd • Aa = 355 • 9, 460 • 10−3 = 3,358 kN
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 5
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
Depth of compression block within steel section flange:

Rs − Rc 3, 358 − 2, 250
=x = = 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 h  h  ( R − Rc ) 2 t f
M a , pl ,RD =
Rs  − d 2  +R c  hs − c  - s
2 2  2  Rf 4
453.6  60  (3,358 − 2,550) 2 14.5
= 3,358 • 10−3 + 2,550 130 −  • 10−3 − • 10−3
2  2  980 4
= 1020.0 kN-m

R=
q 0.775 • R=
s 0.775 • 3,358= 1,976 kN
Tensile Resistance of web:
Rw = 8.5 • (453.6 − 2 •12.7) • 355 •10−3 =
tw • ( D − 2 • t f ) • p y = 1, 292 kN
As Rq > Rw, the plastic axis is in the steel flange, and
h  R h  ( R − Rq ) 2 t f
M c =Rs + Rq  hs − q c  − s
2  Rc 2  Rf 4
453.6  1,976 60  (3,358 − 1,976) 2 14.5
= 3,358 • 10−3 + 1,976 130 − •  • 10−3 − • 10−3
2  2, 250 2  980 4
= 971.2 kN-m
Resistance of Shear Connector:

Resistance of shear connector in solid slab:
 d2  h 95
PRd= 0.29 • α • d 2 • f ck • Ecm γ v ≤ 0.8 • fu •  π  γ v with α =1.0 for = >4
 4  d 19
0.29 • α • d 2 • γ v 0.29 • 1.0 • 192 • 25 • 30,500 • 10−3 1.25

f ck Ecm = = 73 kN controls
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 6
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
 d2   19 
0.8 • fu •  π  γ v =0.8 • 450 •  π  1.25 =81.7 kN
 4   4
Reduction factor for decking perpendicular to beam – assuming two studs per rib:
=kt
0.7
nr
( b0 hp ) ( hsc hp ) − 1 ≤ 0.75 per EN 1994-1-1 Table 6.2
0.7 150
= ( 95 60 ) − 1= 0.72 ≤ 0.75
2 60
PRd = 0.72 • 73= 52 kN
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 beff • hc3
=Ic + + I ay
4 • (1 + n • r ) 12 • n
Aa 9, 460
=r = = 0.052
beff • hc 3, 000 • 60
n = modular ratio = 10 for normal weight concrete subject to variable loads
9, 460 • (457 + 2 • 70 + 60) 2 3, 000 • 603
=Ic + + 33,320 • 104
4 • (1 + 10 • 0.052) 12 • 10
= (6.69 + 0.05 + 3.33) • 108 = 10.08 • 108 mm 4
5 • wlive • L4 5 • 15 • (12, 000) 4

=
δlive = = 19.1 mm
384 • E • I c 384 • 210, 000 • 10.08 • 108
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 7
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3

wfactored • L 34.91 • 12
=VEd = = 209.5 kN
2 2
457 • 9.0 • 355
=V pl , Rd = 843 kN
3 • 10−3
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 8
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 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.

HSS10x6 x⅜ PD = 32.0 kips Height, L = 14 ft
E = 29,000 ksi PL = 84.0 kips
Fy = 46 ksi

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
TECHNICAL FEATURE OF ETABS TESTED

Compression capacity of composite column design.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Difference
Required Strength Pu (kip) 172.8 172.8 0.00%
Available Strength ΦPn (kip) 342.93 354.78 3.34%
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
ASTM A500 Grade B Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 46 ksi, Fu = 58 ksi
Ec = 3,900 ksi, f c′ = 5 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf
Section dimensions and properties:
HSS10x6x⅜
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
hi = H − 2 • t = 10 − 2 • 0.349 = 9.30 in.
bi = B − 2 • t = 6 − 2 • 0.349 = 5.30 in.
Ac= bi • hi − t 2 • (4 − π)= 5.30 • 9.30 − (0.349) 2 • (4 − π)= 49.2 in.2

Moment of inertia for bending about the y-y axis:
( H − 4 • t ) • bt3 t • ( B − 4 • t )3 (9π2 − 64) • t 4  B − 4•t 4•t 

2
=I cy + + + π • t2  − 
12 6 36 • π  2 3• π 
(10 − 4 • 0.349) • 5.303 0.349 • (6 − 4 • 0.349)3 (9π2 − 64) • 0.3494
= + + +
12 6 36 • π
6 − 4 • 0.349 4 • 0.349 2
π • 0.3492 ( − )
2 3• π
= 114.3 in.4
Design for Compression:

Required Compressive Strength:
Pu = 1.2 • PD + 1.6 • PL = 1.2 • 32.0 + 1.6 • 84.0 = 172.8 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Nominal Compressive Strength:

 E 
Pno = Pp = Fy • As + C2 • f c′  Ac + Asr s 
 Ec 
where
C2 = 0.85 for rectangular sections
Asr = 0 when no reinforcing is present within the HSS
Pno = 46 • 10.4 + 0.85 • 5 • (49.2 + 0.0) = 687.5 kips
Weak-axis Elastic Buckling Force:
 As 
C3 =
0.6 + 2   ≤ 0.9
 Ac + As 
 10.4 
=
0.6 + 2   ≤ 0.9
 49.2 + 10.4 
= 0.949 > 0.9 0.9 controls
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 = π2 ( EI eff ) ( KL) 2 where K = 1.0 for a pin-ended member
π2 • 2, 201, 000
=Pe = 769.7 kips
1.0 • (14.0 • 12) 2
Available Compressive Strength:
Pno 688
= = 0.893 < 2.25
Pe 769.7
Therefore, use AISC Specification Equation I2-2:
 Pno

ΦPn =ΦPno 0.658 Pe  =0.75 • 687.5 • (0.658)0.893 =354.8 kips
 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
adequate for the indicated dead load compression and wind load tension. The
entire load is applied to the steel section.

HSS10x6 x⅜ PD = -32.0 kips Height, L = 14 ft
E = 29,000 ksi PW = 100.0 kips
Fy = 46 ksi
 Tension capacity of composite column design.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Difference
Required Strength, Pu (kip) 71.2 71.2 0.00%
Available Strength, ΦPn (kip) 430.5 430.0 0.12%
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 46 ksi, Fu = 58 ksi
Steel section dimensions:

HSS10x6x⅜
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):
Pu = 0.9 • PD + 1.0 • PW = 0.9 • (−32.0) + 1.0 • 100.0 = 71.2 kips
Available Tensile Strength:

ΦPn =Φ ( As • Fy + Asr • Fysr ) =0.9(10.4 • 46 + 0 • 60) =430 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
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.

HSS10x6 x⅜ Pr = 129.0 kips Height, L = 14 ft
E = 29,000 ksi Mr = 120.0 kip-ft
Fy = 46 ksi Vr = 17.1 kips

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Tension capacity of composite column design.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Difference
Required Strength, Fu (k) 129 129 0.00%
Available Strength, ΦPn (kip) 342.9 354.78 -3.35%
Required Strength, Mu (k-ft) 120 120 0.00%
Available Strength, ΦbMn (k-ft) 130.58 130.5 0.06%
Interaction Equation H1-1a 1.19 1.18 0.85%
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 46 ksi, Fu = 58 ksi
Section dimensions and properties:
HSS10x6x⅜
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:
ΦcPn= 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
= − 0.192 • (0.349)
= 3
114.7 in.3
4
0.85 • f c′ • Zc
M D = Fy • Z sx +
2
0.85 • 5 • 115 1, 798.5 kip-in.
=46 • 33.8 + = =149.9 kip-ft
2 12 in./ft

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Available Bending Strength:

0.85 • f c′ • Ac h
=hn ≤ i
2(0.85 • f c′ • bi + 4 • t • Fy ) 2
0.85 • 5 • 49.2 9.30
= ≤
2(0.85 • 5 • 5.30 + 4 • 0.349 • 50) 2
= 1.205 ≤ 4.65
=1.205 in.
Z sn = 2 • t • hn2 = 2 • 0.349 • (1.205) 2 = 1.01 in.3
Z cn =bi • hn2 =5.30 • (1.205) 2 =7.70 in.3
0.85 • f c′ • Z cn
M nx = M D − Fy • Z sn −
2
0.85 • 5 • 7.76 1, 740 kip-in.
= 1,800 − 46 • 1.02 − = = 144.63 kip-ft
2 12 in./ft
Φ b M nx =0.9 • 144.63 =130.16 kip-ft
Interaction Equation H1-1a:

Pu 8  Mu 
+   ≤ 1.0
Φ c • Pn 9  Φ b • M n 
129 8  120 
+   ≤ 1.0
354.78 9  130.16 
1.18 > 1.0 n.g.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
ACI 318-08 PT-SL Example 001

Design Verification of Post-Tensioned Slab using the ACI 318-08 code
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 10

inches thick by 36 inches wide and spans 32 feet, as shown in shown in Figure 1.
A 36-inch-wide design strip was centered along the length of the slab and was
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips were placed at each end of the span perpendicular
to the Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon,
with two strands having an area of 0.153 square inches each, was added to the A-
Strip. The self weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-
tensioning forces are shown below. The total factored strip moments, required
area of mild steel reinforcement, and slab stresses are reported at the mid-span of
the slab. Independent hand calculations were compared with the ETABS results
and summarized for verification and validation of the ETABS results.
Loads: Dead = self weight , Live = 100psf
ACI 318-08 PT-SL Example 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Figure 1 One-Way Slab

Thickness, T, h = 10 in
Effective depth, d = 9 in
Clear span, L = 384 in
Concrete strength, f 'C = 4,000 psi
Yield strength of steel, fy = 60,000 psi
Prestressing, ultimate f pu = 270,000 psi
Prestressing, effective fe = 175,500 psi
Area of Prestress (single strand), A P = 0.153 sq in
Concrete unit weight, wc = 0.150 pcf
Modulus of elasticity, Ec = 3,600 ksi
Modulus of elasticity, Es = 29,000 ksi
Poisson’s ratio,  = 0
Dead load, wd = self psf
Live load, wl = 100 psf

 Calculation of the required flexural reinforcement
 Check of slab stresses due to the application of dead, live and post-tensioning
loads.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
The ETABS total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing and slab
stresses are compared to the independent hand calculations in Table 1.
Table 1 Comparison of Results
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
1429.0 1428.3 -0.05%
Mu (Ultimate) (k-in)
Area of Mild Steel req’d,
2.21 2.21 0.00%
As (sq-in)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
0.734 0.735 0.14%
(D+PTI), ksi
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
0.414 0.414 0.00%
(D+PTI), ksi
Normal Conc. Stress, top
1.518 1.519 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
1.220 1.221 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
1.134 1.135 0.09%
top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), ksi
0.836 0.837 0.12%
bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), ksi
COMPUTER FILE: ACI 318-08 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
 =0.9
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fc = 4000 psi fj = 216.0 ksi

fy = 60,000 psi Stressing Loss = 27.0 ksi
Long-Term Loss = 13.5 ksi
fi = 189.0 ksi
fe = 175.5 ksi
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 10 / 12 ft  0.150 kcf = 0.125 ksf (D)  1.2 = 0.150 ksf (Du)
Live, 0.100 ksf (L)  1.6 = 0.160 ksf (Lu)
Total =0.225 ksf (D+L) 0.310 ksf (D+L)ult
 =0.225 ksf  3 ft = 0.675 klf, u = 0.310 ksf  3ft = 0.930 klf
2
w l1
Ultimate Moment, M U
 = 0.310 klf  322/8 = 119.0 k-ft = 1429.0 k-in
8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
f 'c
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS  f SE  1 0 0 0 0  (span-to-depth ratio > 35)
300  P
4, 000
 1 7 5, 5 0 0  1 0, 0 0 0 
3 0 0  0 .0 0 0 9 4 4 
 1 9 9, 6 2 4 p si  2 0 5, 5 0 0 p si
Ultimate force in PT, F u lt , P T  A P  f PS  2  0 .1 5 3   1 9 9 .6 2   6 1 .0 8 k ip s
Ultimate force in RC, F u lt , R C  A s  f y  2 .0 0 ( a s s u m e d )  6 0 .0   1 2 0 .0 k ip s
Total Ultimate force, F u lt , T o ta l  6 1 .0 8  1 2 0 .0  1 8 1 .0 8 k ip s
F u lt , T o ta l 1 8 1 .0 8
Stress block depth, a    1 .4 8 in
0 .8 5 f ' c b 0 .8 5  4   3 6 
 a   1 .4 8 
Ultimate moment due to PT, M u lt , P T
 F u lt , P T  d     6 1 .0 8  9    0 .9   4 5 4 .1 k -in
 2   2 
Net ultimate moment, M net
 M U
 M u lt , P T
 1 4 2 9 .0  4 5 4 .1  9 7 4 .9 k -in
M 9 7 4 .9
AS    2 .1 8 in
2
Required area of mild steel reinforcing, net
 a   1 .4 8 
 fy  d   0 .9  6 0   9  
 2   2 
Note: The required area of mild steel reinforcing was calculated from an assumed amount of
steel. Since the assumed value and the calculated value are not the same a second iteration can be
performed. The second iteration changes the depth of the stress block and the calculated area of
steel value. Upon completion of the second iteration the area of steel was found to be 2.21in2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Check of Concrete Stresses at Mid-Span:
Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (D + L + PTi) = 1.0D + 1.0PTI
The stress in the tendon at transfer = jacking stress  stressing losses = 216.0  27.0
= 189.0 ksi
 
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1 8 9 .0 2  0 .1 5 3   5 7 .8 3 kips
 0 .1 2 5  3   3 2 
2
Moment due to dead load, M D
8  4 8 .0 k -f t  5 7 6 k -in
Moment due to PT, M PT

 F P T I (s a g )  5 7 .8 3  4 in   2 3 1 .3 k -in
FPTI M  M  5 7 .8 3 5 7 6 .0  2 3 1 .3
Stress in concrete, f   D PT
  , where S = 600 in3
A S 10 36  600
f   0 .1 6 1  0 .5 7 4 5
f = - 0 .7 3 5 ( C o m p ) m a x , 0 .4 1 4 ( T e n s io n ) m a x
Normal Condition, load combinations: (D + L + PTF) = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0PTF
Tendon stress at normal = jacking  stressing  long-term = 216.0  27.0  13.5 = 175.5 ksi
The force in tendon at Normal, = 1 7 5 .5  2   0 .1 5 3   5 3 .7 0 kips
 0 .1 2 5  3   3 2 
2
8  4 8 .0 k -f t  5 7 6 k -in
 0 .1 0 0  3   3 2 
2
Moment due to dead load, M L
8  3 8 .4 k -ft  4 6 1 k -in

 F P T I (s a g )  5 3 .7 0  4 in   2 1 4 .8 k -in
FPTI M DL
 M  5 3 .7 0 1 0 3 7 .0  2 1 4 .8
Stress in concrete for (D + L+ PTF), f   PT
 
A S 10 36  600
f   0 .1 4 9  1 .7 2 7  0 .3 5 8
f   1 .5 1 8 ( C o m p ) m a x , 1 .2 2 0 ( T e n s io n ) m a x
Long-Term Condition, load combinations: (D + 0.5L + PTF(L)) = 1.0D + 0.5L + 1.0PTF
The force in tendon at Normal, = 1 7 5 .5  2   0 .1 5 3   5 3 .7 0 kips
 0 .1 2 5  3   3 2 
2
8  4 8 .0 k -f t  5 7 6 k -in
 0 .1 0 0  3   3 2 
2
Moment due to dead load, M L
8  3 8 .4 k -ft  4 6 0 k -in

 F P T I (s a g )  5 3 .7 0  4 in   2 1 4 .8 k -in

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Stress in concrete for (D + 0.5L + PTF(L)),

FPTI M D  0 .5 L
 M  5 3 .7 0 8 0 6 .0  2 1 4 .8
f    
PT
A S 10 36  600
f   0 .1 4 9  0 .9 8 5
f   1 .1 3 4 ( C o m p ) m a x , 0 .8 3 6 ( T e n s io n ) m a x

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
ACI 318-08 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

Slab Punching Shear Design
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 24-foot-long spans in each
direction, as shown in Figure 1.
A B C D
1' 24' 24' 24' 1'
2'
4 17 18 19 20
10" thick flat slab
24'
13 14 15
3
Columns are 12" x 36"
24' with long side parallel
to the Y-axis, typical
9 10 11 12
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 150 pcf
f'c = 4000 psi
24'
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 20 psf
5 X 6 7 8 LL = 80 psf
1
2'
Figure 1: Flat Slab For Numerical Example
ACI 318-08 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
The slab overhangs the face of the column by 6 inches along each side of the
structure. The columns are typically 12 inches wide by 36 inches long, with the
long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 10 inches thick. Thick shell
properties are used for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 150 pcf and an f 'c of 4000 psi. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 20 psf. The live load
is 80 psf.

 Calculation of punching shear capacity, shear stress, and D/C ratio.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio, and D/C ratio with the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio and
D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this
example.
Table 1 Comparison of Design Results for Punching

Shear at Grid B-2
Shear Stress Shear Capacity

Method (ksi) (ksi) D/C ratio
ETABS 0.1930 0.158 1.22
Calculated 0.1930 0.158 1.22
COMPUTER FILE: ACI 318-08 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation for Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d = [(10 - 1) + (10 - 2)] / 2 = 8.5"
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 44.5 + 20.5 + 44.5 + 20.5 = 130"
20.5"
Y
Critical section for
4.25" 6" 6" 4.25"
punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
4.25"
18"
Side 1
Side 3
X
44.5"
Center of column is
18"
point (x1, y1). Set
this equal to (0,0).
4.25"
Side 4
D
C
Figure 2: Interior Column, Grid B-2 in ETABS Model
 V2 1
1
 0.4955
 2  44.5
1  
 3  20.5
 V3 1
1
 0.3115
 2  20.5
1  
 3  44.5
The coordinates of the center of the column (x1, y1) are taken as (0, 0).

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for
punching shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical
section for punching shear, as identified in Figure 2.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
x2 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 b0 = 130
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
Ld 378.25 174.25 378.25 174.25 1105
Ldx2 3877.06 0 3877.06 0 0
Ldy2 0 3877.06 0 3877.06 0
x3 
 Ldx 2

0
 0"
Ld 1105
y3 
 Ldy 2

0
 0"
Ld 1105
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY
are given in the “Sum” column.
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 N.A.
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
x2 - x3 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 - y3 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
Parallel to Y-Axis X-axis Y-Axis X-axis N.A.
Equations 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 N.A.
IXX 64696.5 86264.6 64696.5 86264.6 301922.3
IYY 39739.9 7151.5 39739.9 7151.5 93782.8
IXY 0 0 0 0 0
From the ETABS output at Grid B-2:

VU = 189.45 k
 V 2 M U 2 = 156.39 k-in
 V 3 M U 3 = 91.538 k-in

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
At the point labeled A in Figure 2, x4 = 10.25 and y4 = 22.25, thus:

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0   10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5 (301922.3)(93782.8)  (0)2
91.538 301922.3  10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714  0.0115  0.0100 = 0.1499 ksi at point A
At the point labeled B in Figure 2, x4 = 10.25 and y4 = 22.25, thus:

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0  10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5  301922.3 93782.8    0 2
91.538 301922.3 10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714  0.0115 + 0.0100 = 0.1699 ksi at point B
At the point labeled C in Figure 2, x4 = 10.25 and y4 = 22.25, thus:

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0  10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5  301922.3 93782.8    0 2
91.538 301922.3 10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714 + 0.0115 + 0.0100 = 0.1930 ksi at point C
At the point labeled D in Figure 2, x4 = 10.25 and y4 = 22.25, thus:

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0   10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5  301922.3 93782.8    0 2
91.538 301922.3  10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714 + 0.0115 - 0.0100 = 0.1729 ksi at point D

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 0.1930 ksi
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of ACI 318-08 equations 11-34,
11-35 and 11-36 with the b0 and d terms removed to convert force to stress.
 4 
0.75  2   4000
 vC   36 /12 
 0.158 ksi in accordance with equation 11-34
1000
 40  8.5 
0.75   2  4000
 vC   130   0.219 ksi in accordance with equation 11-35
1000
0.75  4  4000
 vC   0.190 ksi in accordance with equation 11-36
1000
Equation 11-34 yields the smallest value of vC = 0.158 ksi and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 0.193
Shear Ratio    1.22
 vC 0.158

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
ACI 318-08 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

Slab Flexural Design
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
A one-way, simple-span slab supported by walls on two opposite edges is

modeled using ETABS. The slab is 6 inches thick and spans 12 feet between
walls. The walls are modeled as line supports. The computational model uses a
finite element mesh, automatically generated by ETABS. The maximum element
size is specified to be 36 inches. To obtain factored moments and flexural
reinforcement in a design strip, one one-foot-wide strip is defined in the X-
direction on the slab, as shown in Figure 1.
Simply
Simply
12 ft span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1ft design strip

X Free edge
Figure 1 Plan View of One-Way Slab
One dead load case (DL80) and one live load case (LL100) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 80 and 100 psf, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB100) is defined using the ACI 318-08
load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is
analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
the analysis, design is performed in accordance with ACI 318-08 using ETABS
and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the moments
and design reinforcements computed using the two methods.
ACI 318-08 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Thickness T, h = 6 in
Depth of tensile reinf. dc = 1 in
Effective depth d = 5 in
Clear span ln, l1 = 144 in
Concrete strength fc = 4,000 psi

Yield strength of steel fy = 60,000 psi
Concrete unit weight wc = 0 pcf
Modulus of elasticity Ec = 3,600 ksi
Modulus of elasticity Es = 29,000 ksi
Poisson’s ratio  = 0
Dead load wd = 80 psf

Live load wl = 100 psf

 Calculation of flexural reinforcement
 Application of minimum flexural reinforcement
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Table 1 Comparison of Design Moments and Reinforcements
Strip Reinforcement Area (sq-in)

Load Moment
Level Method (k-in) As+
ETABS 55.22 0.213

Medium
Calculated 55.22 0.213
A s ,min = 0.1296 sq-in
COMPUTER FILE: ACI 318-08 RC-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
 = 0.9
b = 12 in
As,min = 0.0018bh = 0.1296 sq-in
 f   4000 
1  0.85  0.05  c   0.85
 1000 
0.003
cmax  d  1.875 in
0.003  0.005
amax = 1cmax = 1.59375 in
For the load combination, w and Mu are calculated as follows:
w = (1.2wd + 1.6wt) b / 144
wl12
Mu 
8
As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[0.1296, (4/3)2.11] = 0.1296 sq-in
COMB100
wd = 80 psf
wt = 100 psf
w = 21.33 lb/in
Mu-strip = 55.22 k-in
Mu-design = 55.629 k-in
2 Mu
a  d  d2  = 0.3128 in < amax
0.85 f c' b
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
Mu
As  = 0.213 sq-in > As,min
 a
 fy  d  
 2
As = 0.2114 sq-in

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
ACI 318-11 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Loads: Dead = self weight , Live = 100psf
ACI 318-11 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Area of Prestress (single strand), AP = 0.153 sq in

loads.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
1429.0 1428.3 -0.05%
2.21 2.21 0.00%
As (sq-in)
0.734 0.735 0.14%
(D+PTI), ksi
0.414 0.414 0.00%
(D+PTI), ksi
1.518 1.519 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
1.220 1.221 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
1.134 1.135 0.09%
0.836 0.837 0.12%
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
 =0.9
fc = 4000 psi fj = 216.0 ksi

fi = 189.0 ksi
fe = 175.5 ksi
Loads:
Live, 0.100 ksf (L)  1.6 = 0.160 ksf (Lu)
 =0.225 ksf  3 ft = 0.675 klf,  u = 0.310 ksf  3ft = 0.930 klf
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U  = 0.310 klf  322/8 = 119.0 k-ft = 1429.0 k-in
8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
f'c
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS  f SE  10000  (span-to-depth ratio > 35)
300  P
4, 000
 175,500  10, 000 
300  0.000944 
 199, 624 psi  205,500 psi
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT  AP  f PS   2  0.153199.62   61.08 kips

Ultimate force in RC, Fult , RC  As  f  y  2.00(assumed)  60.0   120.0 kips
Total Ultimate force, Fult ,Total  61.08  120.0  181.08 kips
Fult ,Total 181.08

Stress block depth, a    1.48 in
0.85 f ' cb 0.85  4   36 
 a  1.48   
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT  Fult , PT  d     61.08  9   0.9  454.1 k-in
 2  2 
Net ultimate moment, M net  M U  M ult , PT  1429.0  454.1  974.9 k-in
M net 974.9
Required area of mild steel reinforcing, AS    2.18 in 2
 a  1.48 
 f y  d   0.9  60   9  
 2  2 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
= 189.0 ksi
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 189.0 2  0.153  57.83 kips
 
Moment due to dead load, M D  0.125  3 32  8  48.0 k-ft  576 k-in
2
Moment due to PT, M PT  FPTI (sag)  57.83  4 in   231.3 k-in

F M  M PT 57.83 576.0  231.3
Stress in concrete, f  PTI  D   , where S = 600 in3
A S 10  36  600
f  0.161  0.5745
f = -0.735(Comp)max, 0.414(Tension)max
The force in tendon at Normal, = 175.5  2   0.153  53.70 kips
2
Moment due to dead load, M L  0.100  3 32  8  38.4 k-ft  461 k-in
2
FPTI M D  L  M PT 53.70 1037.0  214.8

Stress in concrete for (D + L+ PTF), f    
A S 10  36  600
f  0.149  1.727  0.358
f  1.518(Comp) max,1.220(Tension) max
2
2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

F M  M PT 53.70 806.0  214.8
f  PTI  D  0.5 L  
A S 10  36  600
f  0.149  0.985
f  1.134(Comp) max, 0.836(Tension) max

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A B C D
1' 24' 24' 24' 1'
2'
4 17 18 19 20
10" thick flat slab
24'
13 14 15
3
9 10 11 12
f'c = 4000 psi
24'
Y Loading
5 X 6 7 8 LL = 80 psf
1
2'

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
is 80 psf.

RESULTS COMPARISON
example.

Shear at Grid B-2

ETABS 0.1930 0.158 1.22
Calculated 0.1930 0.158 1.22
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
d = [(10 - 1) + (10 - 2)] / 2 = 8.5"
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 44.5 + 20.5 + 44.5 + 20.5 = 130"
20.5"
Y
4.25" 6" 6" 4.25"
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
4.25"
18"
Side 1
Side 3
X
44.5"
Center of column is
18"
point (x1, y1). Set
4.25"
Side 4
D
C
 V2 1
1
 0.4955
 2  44.5
1  
 3  20.5
 V3 1
1
 0.3115
 2  20.5
1  
 3  44.5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
x2 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 b0 = 130
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
Ld 378.25 174.25 378.25 174.25 1105
Ldx2 3877.06 0 3877.06 0 0
Ldy2 0 3877.06 0 3877.06 0
x3 
 Ldx 2

0
 0"
Ld 1105
y3 
 Ldy 2

0
 0"
Ld 1105
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 N.A.
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
x2 - x3 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 - y3 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
IXX 64696.5 86264.6 64696.5 86264.6 301922.3
IYY 39739.9 7151.5 39739.9 7151.5 93782.8
IXY 0 0 0 0 0

VU = 189.45 k
 V 2 M U 2 = 156.39 k-in
 V 3 M U 3 = 91.538 k-in

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0   10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5 (301922.3)(93782.8)  (0)2
91.538 301922.3  10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714  0.0115  0.0100 = 0.1499 ksi at point A

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0  10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5  301922.3 93782.8    0 2
91.538 301922.3 10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714  0.0115 + 0.0100 = 0.1699 ksi at point B

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0  10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5  301922.3 93782.8    0 2
91.538 301922.3 10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714 + 0.0115 + 0.0100 = 0.1930 ksi at point C

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0   10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5  301922.3 93782.8    0 2
91.538 301922.3  10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714 + 0.0115 - 0.0100 = 0.1729 ksi at point D

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 4 
0.75  2   4000
 vC   36 /12 
1000
 40  8.5 
0.75   2  4000
1000
0.75  4  4000
1000
capacity.
vU 0.193
 vC 0.158

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

walls. The slab is modeled using thin plate elements. The walls are modeled as
line supports. The computational model uses a finite element mesh, automatically
generated by ETABS. The maximum element size is specified to be 36 inches.
To obtain factored moments and flexural reinforcement in a design strip, one
one-foot-wide strip is defined in the X-direction on the slab, as shown in Figure
1.
Simply
Simply
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1ft design strip

X Free edge

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0




RESULTS COMPARISON

Load Moment
ETABS 55.22 0.213

Medium
A s ,min = 0.1296 sq-in
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
 = 0.9
b = 12 in
As,min = 0.0018bh = 0.1296 sq-in
 f   4000 
1  0.85  0.05  c   0.85
 1000 
0.003
cmax  d  1.875 in
0.003  0.005
amax = 1cmax = 1.59375 in
w = (1.2wd + 1.6wt) b / 144
wl12
Mu 
8
COMB100
wd = 80 psf
wt = 100 psf
w = 21.33 lb/in
2 Mu
a  d  d2  = 0.3128 in < amax
0.85 f c' b
Mu
 a
 fy  d  
 2
As = 0.2114 sq-in

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
ACI 318-14 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 100psf

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Area of Prestress (single strand), AP = 0.153 sq in

loads.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
1429.0 1428.3 -0.05%
2.21 2.21 0.00%
As (sq-in)
0.734 0.735 0.14%
(D+PTI), ksi
0.414 0.414 0.00%
(D+PTI), ksi
1.518 1.519 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
1.220 1.221 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
1.134 1.135 0.09%
0.836 0.837 0.12%
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
 =0.9
fc = 4000 psi fj = 216.0 ksi

fi = 189.0 ksi
fe = 175.5 ksi
Loads:
Live, 0.100 ksf (L)  1.6 = 0.160 ksf (Lu)
 =0.225 ksf  3 ft = 0.675 klf,  u = 0.310 ksf  3ft = 0.930 klf
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U  = 0.310 klf  322/8 = 119.0 k-ft = 1429.0 k-in
8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
f'c
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS  f SE  10000  (span-to-depth ratio > 35)
300  P
4, 000
 175,500  10, 000 
300  0.000944 
 199, 624 psi  205,500 psi
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT  AP  f PS   2  0.153199.62   61.08 kips

Ultimate force in RC, Fult , RC  As  f  y  2.00(assumed)  60.0   120.0 kips
Total Ultimate force, Fult ,Total  61.08  120.0  181.08 kips
Fult ,Total 181.08

Stress block depth, a    1.48 in
0.85 f ' cb 0.85  4   36 
 a  1.48   
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT  Fult , PT  d     61.08  9   0.9  454.1 k-in
 2  2 
Net ultimate moment, M net  M U  M ult , PT  1429.0  454.1  974.9 k-in
M net 974.9
Required area of mild steel reinforcing, AS    2.18 in 2
 a  1.48 
 f y  d   0.9  60   9  
 2  2 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
= 189.0 ksi
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 189.0 2  0.153  57.83 kips
 
2

F M  M PT 57.83 576.0  231.3
Stress in concrete, f  PTI  D   , where S = 600 in3
A S 10  36  600
f  0.161  0.5745
f = -0.735(Comp)max, 0.414(Tension)max
2
2
FPTI M D  L  M PT 53.70 1037.0  214.8

Stress in concrete for (D + L+ PTF), f    
A S 10  36  600
f  0.149  1.727  0.358
f  1.518(Comp) max,1.220(Tension) max
2
2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

F M  M PT 53.70 806.0  214.8
f  PTI  D  0.5 L  
A S 10  36  600
f  0.149  0.985

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A B C D
1' 24' 24' 24' 1'
2'
4 17 18 19 20
10" thick flat slab
24'
13 14 15
3
9 10 11 12
f'c = 4000 psi
24'
Y Loading
5 X 6 7 8 LL = 80 psf
1
2'

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
is 80 psf.

RESULTS COMPARISON
example.

Shear at Grid B-2

ETABS 0.1930 0.158 1.22
Calculated 0.1930 0.158 1.22
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
d = [(10 - 1) + (10 - 2)] / 2 = 8.5"
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 44.5 + 20.5 + 44.5 + 20.5 = 130"
20.5"
Y
4.25" 6" 6" 4.25"
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
4.25"
18"
Side 1
Side 3
X
44.5"
Center of column is
18"
point (x1, y1). Set
4.25"
Side 4
D
C
 V2 1
1
 0.4955
 2  44.5
1  
 3  20.5
 V3 1
1
 0.3115
 2  20.5
1  
 3  44.5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
x2 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 b0 = 130
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
Ld 378.25 174.25 378.25 174.25 1105
Ldx2 3877.06 0 3877.06 0 0
Ldy2 0 3877.06 0 3877.06 0
x3 
 Ldx 2

0
 0"
Ld 1105
y3 
 Ldy 2

0
 0"
Ld 1105
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 N.A.
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
x2 - x3 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 - y3 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
IXX 64696.5 86264.6 64696.5 86264.6 301922.3
IYY 39739.9 7151.5 39739.9 7151.5 93782.8
IXY 0 0 0 0 0

VU = 189.45 k
 V 2 M U 2 = 156.39 k-in
 V 3 M U 3 = 91.538 k-in

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0   10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5 (301922.3)(93782.8)  (0)2
91.538 301922.3  10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714  0.0115  0.0100 = 0.1499 ksi at point A

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0  10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5  301922.3 93782.8    0 2
91.538 301922.3 10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714  0.0115 + 0.0100 = 0.1699 ksi at point B

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0  10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5  301922.3 93782.8    0 2
91.538 301922.3 10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714 + 0.0115 + 0.0100 = 0.1930 ksi at point C

189.45 156.39 93782.8  22.25  0    0   10.25  0  
vU   
130  8.5  301922.3 93782.8    0 2
91.538 301922.3  10.25  0    0   22.25  0  
 301922.3 93782.8    0 2
vU = 0.1714 + 0.0115 - 0.0100 = 0.1729 ksi at point D

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 4 
0.75  2   4000
 vC   36 /12 
1000
 40  8.5 
0.75   2  4000
1000
0.75  4  4000
1000
capacity.
vU 0.193
 vC 0.158

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

walls. The walls are modeled as line supports. The computational model uses a
finite element mesh, automatically generated by ETABS. The maximum element
size is specified to be 36 inches. To obtain factored moments and flexural
reinforcement in a design strip, one one-foot-wide strip is defined in the X-
Simply
Simply
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1ft design strip

X Free edge

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0




RESULTS COMPARISON

Load Moment
ETABS 55.22 0.213

Medium
A s ,min = 0.1296 sq-in
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
 = 0.9
b = 12 in
As,min = 0.0018bh = 0.1296 sq-in
 f   4000 
1  0.85  0.05  c   0.85
 1000 
0.003
cmax  d  1.875 in
0.003  0.005
amax = 1cmax = 1.59375 in
w = (1.2wd + 1.6wt) b / 144
wl12
Mu 
8
COMB100
wd = 80 psf
wt = 100 psf
w = 21.33 lb/in
2 Mu
a  d  d2  = 0.3128 in < amax
0.85 f c' b
Mu
 a
 fy  d  
 2
As = 0.2114 sq-in

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AS 3600-2009 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

Post-Tensioned Slab Design
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
mild steel reinforcing strength for a post-tensioned slab.
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm, as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
AS 3600-2009 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
A 914-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and is defined
as an A-Strip. B-Strips have been placed at each end of the span, perpendicular to
Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with
two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the A-Strip. The
self weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-tensioning
forces are as follows:
Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 4.788 kN/m2
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the mid-span of the slab. Independent hand
calculations were compared with the ETABS results and summarized for
verification and validation of the ETABS results.

Thickness, T, h = 254 mm

Concrete strength, f 'c = 30 MPa
Prestressing, ultimate fpu = 1862 MPa
Prestressing, effective fe = 1210 MPa
Area of prestress (single tendon), Ap = 198 mm2
Concrete unit weight, wc = 23.56 KN/m3
Concrete modulus of elasticity, Ec = 25000 N/mm3
Rebar modulus of elasticity, Es = 200,000 N/mm3
Dead load, wd = self KN/m2

Live load, wl = 4.788 KN/m2

loads.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
AS 3600-2009 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
156.12 156.17 0.03%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Area of Mild Steel req’d, As
16.55 16.60 0.30%
(sq-cm)
3.500 3.498 -0.06%
(0.8D+1.15PTI), MPa
0.950 0.948 -0.21%
(0.8D+1.15PTI), MPa
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress, top
7.817 7.818 0.01%
(D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress, bot
5.759 5.760 0.02%
COMPUTER FILE: AS 3600-2009 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
AS 3600-2009 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
f’c = 30MPai fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
  0.80
 2  1.0  0.003 f 'c = 0.91 > 0.85, Use  2  0.85
  1.0  0.003 f 'c = 0.91 > 0.85, Use   0.85
amax  k u d = 0.85*0.36*229 = 70.07 mm
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m x 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) x 1.2 = 7.181 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.5 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 14.363 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
 =10.772 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 9.846 kN/m,  u = 14.363 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 13.128 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U  = 13.128 x (9.754)2/8 = 156.12 kN-m
8
AS 3600-2009 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
f 'C bef d P
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS  f SE  70 
300 AP
30  914  229 
 1210  70 
300 198 
 1386 MPa  f SE  200  1410 MPa
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT  AP ( f PS )  197.4 1386  1000  273.60 kN

Total Ultimate force, Fult ,Total  273.60  560.0  833.60 kN
2M*
Stress block depth, a  d  d  2
0.85 f 'c  b
2 159.12 
 0.229  0.2292   40.90
0.85  30000  0.80  0.914 
Ultimate moment due to PT,
 a  40.90  
M ult , PT  Fult , PT  d     273.60  229   0.80  1000  45.65 kN-m
 2  2 
Net ultimate moment, M net  M U  M ult , PT  156.1  45.65  110.45 kN-m
Required area of mild steel reinforcing,

M net 110.45
AS   1e6   1655 mm 2
 a  0.04090 
 f y  d   0.80  400000   0.229  
 2  2 
Check of Concrete Stresses at Midspan:
Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (0.8D+1.15PTi) = 0.80D+0.0L+1.15PTI
Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress  stressing losses =1490  186 = 1304 MPa
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304 197.4  1000  257.4 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D  5.984  0.914  9.754  8  65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT  FPTI (sag)  257.4 102 mm  1000  26.25 kN-m
F M  M PT 1.15  257.4   0.80  65.04  1.15 26.23
Stress in concrete, f  PTI  D  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
f  1.275  2.225 MPa
AS 3600-2009 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Normal Condition, load combinations: (D+L+PTF) = 1.0D+1.0L+1.0PTF
Tendon stress at Normal = jacking  stressing  long-term = 1490  186  94= 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at Normal, = 1210 197.4  1000  238.9 kN
2
Moment due to live load, M L  4.788  0.914  9.754  8  52.04 kN-m

2
Stress in concrete for (D+L+PTF),

F M  M PT 238.8 117.08  24.37
f  PTI  D  L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  9.431
Long-Term Condition, load combinations: (D+0.5L+PTF(L)) = 1.0D+0.5L+1.0PTF
Tendon stress at Normal = jacking  stressing  long-term =1490  186  94 = 1210 MPa
2
Moment due to dead load, M L  4.788  0.914  9.754  8  52.04 kN-m

2
Stress in concrete for (D+0.5L+PTF(L)),

F M  M PT 238.9 91.06  24.33
f  PTI  D  0.5 L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  6.788
AS 3600-2009 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AS 3600-2009 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m, with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25-m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f 'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
AS 3600-2009 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio,
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.

Shear at Grid Point B-2
Shear Stress Shear Capacity D/C ratio
Method (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
ETABS 1.793 1.127 1.60
Calculated 1.811 1.086 1.67
COMPUTER FILE: AS 3600-2009 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
AS 3600-2009 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
dom = [(250  26) + (250  38)] / 2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
U = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
ax = 518 mm
ay = 1118 mm
518 Note: All dimensions in millimeters
Y
109 150 150 109 punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
109
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1118
Center of column is 450

point (x1, y1). Set
109
Side 4
D C
From the ETABS output at grid line B-2:

V* = 1126.498 kN
Mv2 = 51.991 kN-m
Mv3 = 45.723 kN-m
AS 3600-2009 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
The maximum design shear stress is computed along the major and minor axis of column
separately:
V*  uM v 
vmax  1.0  * 
ud om  8V ad om 
1126.498  103  3272  51.991  106 

vmax, X   1  
3272  218  8  1126.498  10  1118  218 
3
vmax, X = 1.579  1.0774 = 1.7013 N/mm2
1126.498  103  3272  45.723  106 

vmax,Y   1  
3272  218  8  1126.498  10  518  218 
3
vmax,Y = 1.579  1.1470 = 1.811 N/mm2 (Govern)
The largest absolute value of vmax= 1.811 N/mm2
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of AS 3600-09 equation 11-35,
with the dom and u terms removed to convert force to stress.
  2 
0.17  1   f c
 fcv  min   h  = 1.803N/mm2 in accordance with AS 9.2.3(a)

0.34 f c
AS 9.2.3(a) yields the smallest value of  fcv = 1.086 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 1.811
 f cv 1.086
AS 3600-2009 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
AS 3600-2009 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS

modeled using SAFE. The slab is 150 mm thick and spans 4 meters between
walls. The walls are modeled as pin supports. The computational model uses a
finite element mesh, automatically generated by SAFE. The maximum element
size is specified as 0.25 meters. To obtain factored moments and flexural
reinforcement in a design strip, one one-meter wide strip is defined in the X-
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa), with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the AS 3600-
2009 load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The
model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combinations.
analysis, design is performed using the AS 3600-2009 code using ETABS and
also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
reinforcements computed using the two methods.
AS 3600-2009 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Thickness T, h = 150 mm
Depth of tensile reinf. dc = 25 mm
Effective depth d = 125 mm
Clear span ln, l1 = 4000 mm
Concrete strength fc = 30 MPa

Yield strength of steel fsy = 460 MPa
Concrete unit weight wc = 0 N/m3
Modulus of elasticity Ec = 25000 MPa
Modulus of elasticity Es = 2x106 MPa
Dead load wd = 4.0 kPa

Live load wl = 5.0 kPa

RESULTS COMPARISON
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+
ETABS 24.597 5.58

Medium
A s ,min = 370.356 sq-mm
COMPUTER FILE: AS 3600-2009 RC-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
AS 3600-2009 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
 = 0.8
b = 1000 mm
 2  1.0  0.003 f 'c = 0.91 > 0.85, Use  2  0.85
  1.05  0.007 f 'c = 0.84 < 0.85, Use   0.84
a max  k u d = 0.84•0.36•125 = 37.80 mm
For the load combination, w and M* are calculated as follows:

w = (1.2wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
Mu 
8
2 '
 h  f ct , f
As  0.24   bh for flat slabs
 d  f sy , f
 h  f ct , f
2
Ast .min  0.24   bd
 d  f sy , f
= 0.24•(150/125)2•0.6•SQRT(30)/460•1000•150
= 370.356 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.3 kN/m
M-strip* = 24.6 kN-m
M-design* = 24.633 kN-m

2M *
a  d  d2  = 10.065 mm < amax
0.85 f 'c  b
AS 3600-2009 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

M*
Ast  = 557.966 sq-mm > As,min
 a
f sy  d  
 2
As = 5.57966 sq-cm
AS 3600-2009 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
BS 8110-1997 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
BS 8110-1997 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span,
perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile).
A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, was added to the A-
Strip. The self-weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-
tensioning forces are as follows.
slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations
have been compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification and
validation of the ETABS results.

Clear span L = 9754 mm
Concrete strength f 'c = 30 MPa

Yield strength of steel fy = 400 MPa
Area of Prestress (single strand) Ap = 198 mm2
Concrete unit weight wc = 23.56 kN/m3
Modulus of elasticity Ec = 25000 N/mm3
Modulus of elasticity Es = 200,000 N/mm3
Dead load wd = self kN/m2

Live load wl = 4.788 kN/m2

 Check of slab stresses due to the application of dead, live, and post-tensioning
loads.
RESULTS COMPARISON
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
BS 8110-1997 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
174.4 174.4 0.00%
19.65 19.80 0.76%
As (sq-cm)
5.058 5.057 0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
COMPUTER FILE: BS 8110-1997 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
BS 8110-1997 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
fcu = 30 MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400 MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.6 = 7.661 kN/m2 (Lu)
 =10.772 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 16.039 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 14.659 kN/m
wl12
8
7000  f pu Ap 
Ultimate Stress in strand, f pb  f pe   1  1.7 
l/d  f cu bd 
7000  1862(198) 
 1210  1  1.7 
9.754 / 0.229  30(914)(229) 
 1358 MPa  0.7 f pu  1303 MPa
BS 8110-1997 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
K factor used to determine the effective depth is given as:

M 174.4
K =  0.1213 < 0.156
30000  0.914  0.229 
2 2
f cu bd
 K 
z  d  0.5  0.25    0.95d = 192.2 mm
0.9 
 
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT  AP ( f PS )  197.4 1303 1000  257.2 KN
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT  Fult , PT ( z ) /   257.2  0.192  1.15  43.00 kN-m
Net Moment to be resisted by As, M NET  MU  M PT

 174.4  43.00  131.40 kN-m
M NET 131.4
As  = 1e6   1965 mm 2
0.87 f y z 0.87  400 192 
Initial Condition (Transfer), load combination (D+PTi) = 1.0D+0.0L+1.0PTI

Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress  stressing losses = 1490  186 = 1304 MPa
2
Moment due to PT, M PT  FPTI (sag)  257.4 102mm  1000  26.25 kN-m
FPTI M D  M PT 257.4 65.04  26.23
Stress in concrete, f    
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
where S=0.00983m3
f  1.109  3.948 MPa

Tendon stress at Normal = jacking  stressing  long-term = 1490  186  94= 1210 MPa
2

2
BS 8110-1997 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

F M  M PT 238.8 117.08  24.37
f  PTI  D  L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  9.431
BS 8110-1997 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
BS 8110-1997 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
8m
3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25-m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a fcu of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
load is 4 kN/m2.
BS 8110-1997 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

 Calculation of punching shear capacity, shear stress and D/C ratio.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
for this problem.

Shear at Grid B-2
Shear Stress Shear Capacity D/C ratio
Method (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
ETABS 1.119 0.660 1.70
Calculated 1.105 0.625 1.77
COMPUTER FILE: BS 8110-1997 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
BS 8110-1997 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
d   250  26    250  38  2  218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
u = 954+ 1554 + 954 + 1554 = 5016 mm
Y
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
327
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1554

point (x1, y1). Set
this equal to (0,0). 327
Side 4
D C

V = 1126.498 kN
M2 = 51.9908 kN-m
M3 = 45.7234 kN-m
BS 8110-1997 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Maximum design shear stress in computed in along major and minor axis of column:
V  1.5M
x 
veff , x   f   (BS 3.7.7.3)
ud  Vy 
1126.498  103  1.5  51.9908  106 

veff , x   1 .0    1.1049 (Govern)
5016  218  1126.498  103  954 
V  1.5M
y 
veff , y  f 
ud  Vx 
 
1126.498  103  1.5  45.7234  106 
veff , y   1.0    1.0705
5016  218  1126.498  103  1554 
The largest absolute value of v = 1.1049 N/mm2

1 1
0.79k1k 2  100 As  3  400  4
vc      = 0.3568 MPa
 m  bd   d 
1 1
 f  3  30  3
k2 =  cu  =   = 1.0627 > 1.0 OK
 25   25 
m = 1.25
1
 400  4
  = 1.16386 > 1 OK.
 d 
fcu  40 MPa (for calculation purposes only) and As is the area of tension
reinforcement.
Areas of reinforcement at the face of column for the design strips are as
follows:
As in Strip Layer A = 9494.296 mm2
As in Strip Layer B = 8314.486 mm2
BS 8110-1997 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Average As = (9494.296+8314.486)/2 = 8904.391 mm2

100 As
= 100  8904.391/(8000  218) = 0.51057
bd
0.79  1.0  1.0627

  0.51057   1.16386 = 0.6247 MPa
1/ 3
vc 
1.25
BS 3.7.7.3 yields the value of v = 0.625 N/mm2 , and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 1.1049
v 0.6247
BS 8110-1997 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
BS 8110-1997 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the BS 8110-97
the analysis, design was performed using the BS 8110-97 code by ETABS and
reinforcements computed by the two methods.
BS 8110-1997 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0




RESULTS COMPARISON
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
ETABS 27.197 5.853

Medium
A s ,min = 162.5 sq-mm
COMPUTER FILE: BS 8110-1997 RC-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
BS 8110-1997 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
m, steel = 1.15
b = 1000 mm
For the load combination, w and M are calculated as follows:
w = (1.4wd + 1.6wt) b
wl12
M
8
As,min = 0.0013bwd
= 162.5 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 13.6 kN/m
M-strip = 27.2 kN-m
M-design = 27.2366 kN-m
M
K = 0.05810 < 0.156
f cu bd 2
 K 
z  d  0.5  0.25    0.95d =116.3283

 0.9 
M
As  = 585.046 sq-mm > As,min
0.87 f y z
As = 5.850 sq-cm
BS 8110-1997 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CSA 23.3-04 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A one-way simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span
CSA 23.3-04 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the
A-Strip. The self weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-
tensioning forces are as follows:
Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 4.788 KN/m2


Concrete unit weight wc = 23.56 KN/m3
Dead load wd = self KN/m2

Live load wl = 4.788 KN/m2

loads.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
159.4 159.4 0.00%
16.25 16.33 0.49%
As (sq-cm)
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
7.817 7.818 0.01%
top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
5.759 5.760 0.02%
bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-04 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
fcu = 30MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
c  0.65 , S  0.85
1 = 0.85 – 0.0015f'c  0.67 = 0.805
1 = 0.97 – 0.0025f'c  0.67 = 0.895
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
wl12
8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Ultimate Stress in strand, f pb  f pe 

8000
lo
 d p  cy 
 p Ap f pr  s As f y 0.9 197 1347   0.85 1625  400 

cy    61.66 mm
1c f 'c 1b 0.805  0.65  30.0  0.895  914 
8000
f pb  1210   229  61.66   1347 MPa
9754
Depth of the compression block, a, is given as:
2M *
Stress block depth, a  d  d 2 
 1 f 'c c b
2 159.42 
 0.229  0.2292   55.18
0.805  30000  0.65  0.914 
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT  AP ( f PS )  197 1347  1000  265.9 kN
 a  55.18 
M ult , PT  Fult , PT  d     265.9  0.229    0.85   45.52 kN-m
 2  2 

 159.42  45.52  113.90 kN-m
M NET 113.90
As  = 1e6   1625 mm 2
0.87 f y z  55.18 
0.87  400   229  
 2 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

2
F M  M PT 257.4 65.04  26.23
A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
f  1.109  3.948 MPa

Tendon stress at normal = jacking  stressing  long-term = 1490  186  94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at normal, = 1210 197.4  1000  238.9 kN
2

2

F M  M PT 238.8 117.08  24.37
f  PTI  D  L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  9.431
2

2

F M  M PT 238.9 91.06  24.33
f  PTI  D  0.5 L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  6.788

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CSA A23.3-04 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8 m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
8m
3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m 2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
load is 4 kN/m2.
CSA A23.3-04 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
for this problem.

Shear at Grid B-2

Method (N/mm2) (N/mm2) D/C ratio
ETABS 1.793 1.127 1.59
Calculated 1.792 1.127 1.59
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-04 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
d   250  26    250  38  2  218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
Y
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
109
450
Side 1
Side 3
X
1118

point (x1, y1). Set
109
Side 4
D C
 V2 1
1
 0.495
 2  1118
1  
 3  518
 V3 1
1
 0.312
 2  518
1  
 3  1118

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for punching
shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical section for
punching shear as identified in Figure 2.
x2 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 0 559 0 559 N.A.
L 1118 518 1118 518 b0 = 3272
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
Ld 243724 112924 243724 112924 713296
Ldx2 63124516 0 63124516 0 0
Ldy2 0 63124516 0 63124516 0
x3 
 Ldx 2

0
 0 mm
Ld 713296
y3 
 Ldy 2

0
 0 mm
Ld 713296
are given in the "Sum" column.
L 1118 518 1118 518 N.A.
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
x2  x3 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2  y3 0 559 0 559 N.A.
IXX 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 1.23E+11
IYY 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 3.86E+10
IXY 0 0 0 0 0

Vf = 1126.498 kN
 V2 Mf,2 = 25.725 kN-m
 V3 Mf,3 = 14.272 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
At the point labeled A in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus:

1126.498  103 25.725  106 [3.86  1010 (559  0)  (0)(259  0)]
vf   
3272  218 (1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
14.272  106 [1.23  1011 ( 259  0)  (0)(559  0)]
(1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
vf = 1.5793  0.1169  0.0958 = 1.3666 N/mm2 at point A
At the point labeled B in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus:

1126.498  103 25.725  106 [3.86  1010 (559  0)  (0)(259  0)]
vf   
3272  218 (1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
14.272  106 [1.23  1011 (259  0)  (0)(559  0)]
(1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
vf = 1.5793  0.1169 + 0.0958 =1.5582 N/mm2 at point B
At the point labeled C in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus:

1126.498  103 25.725  106 [3.86  1010 (559  0)  (0)(259  0)]
vf   
3272  218 (1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0)2
14.272  106 [1.23  1011 (259  0)  (0)(559  0)]
(1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
vf = 1.5793 + 0.1169 + 0.0958 = 1.792 N/mm2 at point C
At the point labeled D in Figure 2, x4 = 259 and y4 = 559, thus:

1126.498  103 25.725  106 [3.86  1010 (559  0)  (0)(259  0)]
vf   
3272  218 (1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
14.272  106 [1.23  1011 ( 259  0)  (0)(559  0)]
(1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
vf = 1.5793 + 0.1169  0.0958 = 1.6004 N/mm2 at point D
Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 1.792 N/mm2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
The shear capacity is calculated based on the minimum of the following three limits:
  2 
c 1    0.19 f c
  c 
  d
vv  min c  0.19  s   f c 1.127 N/mm2 in accordance with CSA 13.3.4.1
  b0 
 0.38 f 
 c c

CSA 13.3.4.1 yields the smallest value of vv = 1.127 N/mm2 , and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 1.792
 vv 1.127

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CSA A23.3-04 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the CSA A23.3-
model is analyzed for these load cases and load combinations.
the analysis, design is performed using the CSA A23.3-04 code by ETABS and
also by hand computation. Table 1 show the comparison of the design
CSA A23.3-04 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0




RESULTS COMPARISON
design strip the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1 also
shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
ETABS 25.00 5.414

Medium
A s ,min = 357.2 sq-mm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-04 RC-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show a very close comparison with the independent results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
c = 0.65 for concrete
s = 0.85 for reinforcement
0.2 f c
As,min = bw h = 357.2 sq-mm
fy
b = 1000 mm
1 = 0.85 – 0.0015f'c  0.67 = 0.805
1 = 0.97 – 0.0025f'c  0.67 = 0.895
700
cb = d = 75.43 mm
700  f y
ab = 1cb = 67.5 mm
w = (1.25wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
Mu 
8
As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[357.2, (4/3)540.63] = 357.2 sq-mm
= 0.22•(150/125)2•0.6•SQRT(30)/460•100•125
= 282.9 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.5 kN/m
Mf-strip = 25.0 kN-m
Mf-design = 25.529 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
2M f
a  d  d2  = 13.769 mm < amax
 1 f 'c c b

Mf
As  = 552.77 sq-mm > As,min
 a
s f y  d  
 2
As = 5.528 sq-cm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CSA A23.3-14 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
CSA A23.3-14 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span
A-Strip. The self weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-
tensioning forces are as follows:
Loads: Dead = self weight, Live = 4.788 KN/m2




loads.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
159.4 159.4 0.00%
16.25 16.33 0.49%
As (sq-cm)
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
7.817 7.818 0.01%
5.759 5.760 0.02%
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-14 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
fcu = 30MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
c  0.65 , S  0.85
1 = 0.85 – 0.0015f'c  0.67 = 0.805
1 = 0.97 – 0.0025f'c  0.67 = 0.895
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
wl12
8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Ultimate Stress in strand, f pb  f pe 

8000
lo
 d p  cy 
 p Ap f pr  s As f y 0.9 197 1347   0.85 1625  400 

cy    61.66 mm
1c f 'c 1b 0.805  0.65  30.0  0.895  914 
8000
f pb  1210   229  61.66   1347 MPa
9754
Depth of the compression block, a, is given as:
2M *
 1 f 'c c b
2 159.42 
 0.229  0.2292   55.18
0.805  30000  0.65  0.914 
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT  AP ( f PS )  197 1347  1000  265.9 kN
 a  55.18 
M ult , PT  Fult , PT  d     265.9  0.229    0.85   45.52 kN-m
 2  2 

 159.42  45.52  113.90 kN-m
M NET 113.90
As  = 1e6   1625 mm 2
0.87 f y z  55.18 
0.87  400   229  
 2 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

2
F M  M PT 257.4 65.04  26.23
A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
f  1.109  3.948 MPa

2

2

F M  M PT 238.8 117.08  24.37
f  PTI  D  L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  9.431
2

2

F M  M PT 238.9 91.06  24.33
f  PTI  D  0.5 L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  6.788

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CSA A23.3-14 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
8m
3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
load is 4 kN/m2.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
for this problem.

Shear at Grid B-2

ETABS 1.793 1.127 1.59
Calculated 1.792 1.127 1.59
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-14 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
d   250  26    250  38  2  218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
Y
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
109
450
Side 1
Side 3
X
1118

point (x1, y1). Set
109
Side 4
D C
 V2 1
1
 0.495
 2  1118
1  
 3  518
 V3 1
1
 0.312
 2  518
1  
 3  1118

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
x2 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 0 559 0 559 N.A.
L 1118 518 1118 518 b0 = 3272
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
Ld 243724 112924 243724 112924 713296
Ldx2 63124516 0 63124516 0 0
Ldy2 0 63124516 0 63124516 0
x3 
 Ldx 2

0
 0 mm
Ld 713296
y3 
 Ldy 2

0
 0 mm
Ld 713296
L 1118 518 1118 518 N.A.
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
x2  x3 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2  y3 0 559 0 559 N.A.
IXX 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 1.23E+11
IYY 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 3.86E+10
IXY 0 0 0 0 0

Vf = 1126.498 kN
 V2 Mf,2 = 25.725 kN-m
 V3 Mf,3 = 14.272 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

1126.498  103 25.725  106 [3.86  1010 (559  0)  (0)(259  0)]
vf   
3272  218 (1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
14.272  106 [1.23  1011 ( 259  0)  (0)(559  0)]
(1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
vf = 1.5793  0.1169  0.0958 = 1.3666 N/mm2 at point A

1126.498  103 25.725  106 [3.86  1010 (559  0)  (0)(259  0)]
vf   
3272  218 (1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
14.272  106 [1.23  1011 (259  0)  (0)(559  0)]
(1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
vf = 1.5793  0.1169 + 0.0958 =1.5582 N/mm2 at point B

1126.498  103 25.725  106 [3.86  1010 (559  0)  (0)(259  0)]
vf   
3272  218 (1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0)2
14.272  106 [1.23  1011 (259  0)  (0)(559  0)]
(1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0)2
vf = 1.5793 + 0.1169 + 0.0958 = 1.792 N/mm2 at point C

1126.498  103 25.725  106 [3.86  1010 (559  0)  (0)(259  0)]
vf   
3272  218 (1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
14.272  106 [1.23  1011 ( 259  0)  (0)(559  0)]
(1.23  1011 )(3.86  1010 )  (0) 2
vf = 1.5793 + 0.1169  0.0958 = 1.6004 N/mm2 at point D

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
  2 
c 1    0.19 f c
  c 
  d
vv  min c  0.19  s   f c 1.127 N/mm2 in accordance with CSA 13.3.4.1
  b0 
 0.38 f 
 c c

CSA 13.3.4.1 yields the smallest value of vv = 1.127 N/mm2 , and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 1.792
 vv 1.127

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
CSA A23.3-14 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the CSA A23.3-
model is analyzed for these load cases and load combinations.
the analysis, design is performed using the CSA A23.3-14 code by ETABS and
also by hand computation. Table 1 show the comparison of the design

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0




RESULTS COMPARISON
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
ETABS 25.00 5.414

Medium
A s ,min = 357.2 sq-mm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPUTER FILE: CSA A23.3-14 RC-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show a very close comparison with the independent results.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
c = 0.65 for concrete
s = 0.85 for reinforcement
0.2 f c
As,min = bw h = 357.2 sq-mm
fy
b = 1000 mm
1 = 0.85 – 0.0015f'c  0.67 = 0.805
1 = 0.97 – 0.0025f'c  0.67 = 0.895
700
cb = d = 75.43 mm
700  f y
ab = 1cb = 67.5 mm
w = (1.25wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
Mu 
8
As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[357.2, (4/3)540.63] = 357.2 sq-mm
= 0.22•(150/125)2•0.6•SQRT(30)/460•100•125
= 282.9 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.5 kN/m
Mf-strip = 25.0 kN-m
Mf-design = 25.529 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
2M f
a  d  d2  = 13.769 mm < amax
 1 f 'c c b

Mf
As  = 552.77 sq-mm > As,min
 a
s f y  d  
 2
As = 5.528 sq-cm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EN 2-2004 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
EN 2-2004 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and
post-tensioning forces are as follows:




loads.
RESULTS COMPARISON
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with independent hand calculations.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
166.41 166.44 0.02%
5.057 5.057 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
7.817 7.818 0.01%
5.759 5.760 0.02%
Reinforcement Area
(sq-cm)
Design Moment
National Annex Method (kN-m) As+
ETABS 166.44 15.39

CEN Default, Norway,
Slovenia and Sweden
ETABS 166.44 15.90

Finland , Singapore and UK
ETABS 166.44 15.96

Denmark
COMPUTER FILE: EN 2-2004 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
f’c = 30MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15
  1.0 for fck ≤ 50 MPa
  0.8 for fck ≤ 50 MPa
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m  23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D)  1.35 = 8.078 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L)  1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
 =10.772 kN/m2  0.914 m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 15.260 kN/m2  0.914 m = 13.948 kN/m
wl12
= 13.948   9.754  8 = 165.9 kN-m
2
Ultimate Moment, M U 
8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 f A 
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS  f SE  7000d 1  1.36 PU P  l
 fCK bd 
 1862(198)  
 1210  7000(229) 1  1.36  9754 
 30(914)  229  
 1361 MPa
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT  AP ( f PS )  2  99 1361 1000  269.5 kN
CEN Default, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden:

Design moment M = 166.4122 kN-m
M
Compression block depth ratio: m  2
bd f cd
166.4122
  0.1736
 0.914  0.229 2 1  30000 1.50 
  1  1  2m = 1  1  2(0.1736)  0.1920
  f bd   1(30 /1.5)(914)(229) 
AEquivTotal    cd   0.1920    2311 mm
2
 f yd   400 /1.15 
 
 1361 
AEquivTotal  AP    AS  2311 mm
2
 400 1.15 
 1361 
AS  2311  198    1536 mm
2
 400 /1.15 
Finland, Singapore and UK:

M
Compression block depth ratio: m 
bd 2f cd
166.4122
  0.2042
 0.914  0.229 2  0.85   30000 1.50 
  1  1  2m = 1  1  2(0.2042)  0.23088

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
  f bd   0.85(30 /1.5)(914)(229) 
2
 f yd   400 /1.15 
 
 1361 
2
 400 1.15 
 1361 
AS  2362  198    1587 mm
2
 400 1.15 
Denmark:

M
bd 2f cd
166.4122
  0.1678
 0.914  0.229 2 1.0   30000 1.45 
  1  1  2m = 1  1  2(0.1678)  0.1849
  f bd   1.0(30 /1.45)(914)(229) 
2
 f yd   400 /1.20 
 
 1361 
2
 400 1.2 
 1361 
AS  2402  198    1594 mm
2
 400 1.2 

The force in the tendon at transfer = 1304 197.4  1000  257.4 kN
2
F M  M PT 257.4 65.04  26.23
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
where S = 0.00983m3
f  1.109  3.948 MPa


Tendon stress at normal = jacking  stressing  long-term=1490  186  94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at normal = 1210 197.4  1000  238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load M D  5.984  0.914  9.754  8  65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to live load M L  4.788  0.914  9.754  8  52.04 kN-m

2

F M  M PT 238.8 117.08  24.37
f  PTI  D  L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  9.431

2

2

F M  M PT 238.9 91.06  24.33
f  PTI  D  0.5 L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  6.788

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EN 2-2004 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
8m
3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
to the Y-axis. Thick shell properties are used for the slab.
load is 4 kN/m2.
EN 2-2004 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
for this problem.

Shear at Grid B-2
National Annex Shear Shear

Stress Capacity D/C
Method (N/mm2) (N/mm2) ratio
CEN Default, Norway, ETABS 1.107 0.610 1.82
Slovenia and Sweden
Calculated 1.089 0.578 1.89
Finland, Singapore and UK ETABS 1.107 0.612 1.81
Calculated 1.089 0.5796 1.88
Denmark ETABS 1.107 0.639 1.73
Calculated 1.089 0.606 1.80
COMPUTER FILE: EN 2-2004 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation for Interior Column using ETABS Method
d   250  26    250  38  2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
u1 = u = 2300 + 2900 + 2436 = 5139.468 mm
Y Critical section for

punching shear
436 150 150 436 shown dashed.
A B
Column
Side 2 436
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1772
450
Center of column is
point (x1, y1). Set
436
this equal to (0,0). Side 4
D C

VEd = 1112.197 kN
k2MEd2 = 38.933 kN-m
k3MEd3 = 17.633 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
VEd  k2 M Ed ,2u1 k3 M Ed ,3u1 
vEd  1    (EC2 6.4.4(2))
ud  VEdW1,2 VEdW1,3 
c12
W1   c1c2  4c2 d  16d 2  2 dc1
2
9002
W1,2   300  900  4  300  218  16  2182  2  218  900
2
W1,2  2,929, 744.957 mm2
9002
W1,3  3  900  300  4  900  218  16  2182  2  218  300
2
W1,2  2, 271,104.319 mm2
VEd  k2 M Ed ,2u1 k3 M Ed ,3u1 

vEd  1   
ud  VEdW1,2 VEdW1,3 
1112.197  103  38.933  106  5139.468 17.633  106  5139.468 

vEd  1   
5139.468  218  1112.197  103  2929744.957 1112.197  103  2271104.319 
vEd  1.089 N/mm2
Thus vmax = 1.089 N/mm2
For CEN Default, Finland, Norway, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden and UK:
C Rd ,c  0.18  c = 0.18/1.5 = 0.12 (EC2 6.4.4)
For Denmark:
CRd ,c  0.18  c = 0.18/1.45 = 0.124 (EC2 6.4.4)
The shear stress carried by the concrete, VRd,c, is calculated as:
VRd ,c  C Rd ,c k 100 1 fck   k1 cp 

13
(EC2 6.4.4)
with a minimum of:
vRd ,c   vmin  k1 cp  (EC2 6.4.4)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
200
k  1  2.0 = 1.9578 (EC2 6.4.4(1))
d
k1 = 0.15. (EC2 6.2.2(1))
As1
1 =  0.02
bw d
Area of reinforcement at the face of column for design strip are as follows:
For CEN Default, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden:

Average As =  9204.985  8078.337  2 = 8641.661 mm2
1 = 8641.661  8000  218  = 0.004955  0.02
For Finland, Singapore and UK:

Average As =  9319.248  8174.104  2 = 8746.676 mm2
1 = 8746.676  8000  218  = 0.005015  0.02
For Denmark:
Average As =  9606.651  8434.444  2 = 9020.548 mm2
1 = 9020.548  8000  218  = 0.005172  0.02

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
For CEN Default, Denmark, Norway, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden and UK:
 min  0.035k 3 2 f ck 1 2 = 0.035 1.9578   30 
3/2 1/2
= 0.525 N/mm2
For Finland:
 min  0.035k 2/3 f ck 1 2 = 0.035 1.9578   30 
2/3 1/2
= 0.3000 N/mm2
vRd ,c   0.12  1.9578 100  0.004955  30   0  = 0.5777 N/mm

13 2
For Finland, Singapore, and UK:

vRd ,c   0.12  1.9578 100  0.005015  30   0  = 0.5796 N/mm
13 2
For Denmark:
vRd ,c  0.124  1.9578 100  0.005015  30   0  = 0.606 N/mm
13 2

v max 1.089
vRd ,c 0.5777
For Finland, Singapore and UK:

v max 1.089
vRd ,c 0.5796
For Denmark:
v max 1.089
vRd ,c 0.606

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EN 2-2004 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Eurocode 2-
model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. These moments
are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the
Eurocode 2-04 code by ETABS and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows
the comparison of the design reinforcements computed by the two methods.
EN 2-2004 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Concrete strength fck = 30 MPa




PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Reinforcement Area
(sq-cm)
Strip Moment
National Annex Method (kN-m) As+
ETABS 25.797 5.400

CEN Default, Norway,
Slovenia and Sweden
ETABS 25.797 5.446

Finland , Singapore and
UK
ETABS 25.797 5.626

Denmark
A s ,min = 204.642 sq-mm
COMPUTER FILE: EN 2-2004 RC-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
  1.0 for fck ≤ 50 MPa
  0.8 for fck ≤ 50 MPa
b = 1000 mm
w = (1.35wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
M
8
 0.0013bw d

As ,min  max  fctm
 0 . 26 bd
 f yk
= 204.642 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.9 kN/m
M-strip = 25.8 kN-m
M-design= 25.8347 kN-m

m, steel = 1.15
αcc = 1.0
M 25.8347  106
m  = 0.08267
bd 2 f cd 1000  1252  1.0  1.0  30 /1.5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
For reinforcement with fyk  500 MPa, the following values are used:
k1 = 0.44
k2 = k4 = 1.25(0.6 + 0.0014/εcu2) = 1.25
 is assumed to be 1
x   k1
   for fck  50 MPa = 0.448
 d  lim k2
x  x 
mlim     1     = 0.294
 d  lim  2  d  lim 
  1  1  2m = 0.08640
 f bd 
As    cd  = 540.024 sq-mm > As,min
 f 
 yd 
As = 5.400 sq-cm
For Singapore and UK:

m, steel = 1.15
αcc = 0.85:
M 25.8347  106
m  = 0.097260
bd 2 f cd 1000  1252  1.0  0.85  30 /1.5
x  x 
mlim     1     = 0.48
 d  lim  2  d  lim 
x   k1
   for fck  50 MPa = 0.60
 d  lim k2
k1 = 0.40
k2 = (0.6 + 0.0014/εcu2) = 1.00

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
  1  1  2m = 0.10251
 f bd 
As    cd  = 544.61 sq-mm > As,min
 f 
 yd 
As = 5.446 sq-cm
For Finland:
m, steel = 1.15
αcc = 0.85:
M 25.8347  106
m  = 0.097260
bd 2 f cd 1000  1252  1.0  0.85  30 /1.5
x  x 
mlim     1     = 032433
 d  lim  2  d  lim 
x   k1
   for fck  50 MPa = 0.5091
 d  lim k2
k1 = 0.44
k2 = 1.1
k4 = 1.25(0.6 + 0.0014/εcu2) = 1.25
  1  1  2m = 0.10251
 f bd 
As    cd  = 544.61 sq-mm > As,min
 f 
 yd 
As = 5.446 sq-cm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
For Denmark:
m, steel = 1.20
αcc = 1.0
M 25.8347  106
m  = 0.0799153
bd 2 f cd 1000  1252  1.0  1.0  30 /1.5
x  x 
mlim     1     = 0.294
 d  lim  2  d  lim 
x   k1
   for fck  50 MPa = 0.448
 d  lim k2
k1 = 0.44
k2 = k4 = 1.25(0.6 + 0.0014/εcu2) = 1.25
  1  1  2m = 0.08339
 f bd 
As    cd  = 562.62 sq-mm > As,min
 f 
 yd 
As = 5.626 sq-cm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HK CP-2013 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
HK CP-2013 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
To ensure one-way action Poisson’s ratio is taken to be zero. A 254-mm-wide

design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been defined as an
A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span, perpendicular to Strip-
A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with two
strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, was added to the A-Strip. The self weight
and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-tensioning forces are as
follows:
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement and
were compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification and




loads.
RESULTS COMPARISON

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
174.4 174.4 0.00%
Mu (KN-m)
19.65 19.80 0.41%
As (cm2)
5.056 5.057 0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
2.836 2.839 0.11%
(D+PTI), MPa
10.547 10.467 -0.76%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
8.323 8.409 1.03%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
COMPUTER FILE: HK CP-2013 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
fc = 30 MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400 MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L)  1.6 = 7.661 kN/m2 (Lu)
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U  = 14.659   9.754  8 = 174.4 kN-m
2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
7000  f pu Ap 
l/d  f cu bd 
7000  1862(198) 
 1210  1  1.7 
9.754 / 0.229  30(914)(229) 
 1358 MPa  0.7 f pu  1303 MPa

M 174.4
K 2
=  0.1213 < 0.156
f cu bd 30000(0.914)(0.229)2
 K 
z  d  0.5  0.25    0.95d = 192.2 mm

 0.9 
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT  AP ( f PS )  197.4 1303 1000  257.2 KN
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT  Fult , PT ( z ) /   257.2  0.192  1.15  43.00 KN-m

 174.4  43.00  131.40 kN-m
M 131.40
As  = 1e6   1965mm 2
0.87 f y z 0.87  400 192 

The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304  2   99  1000  258.2 kN
2
Moment due to PT, M PT  FPTI (sag)  258.2 101.6 mm  1000  26.23 kN-m
F M M 258.2 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f  PTI  D  PT   
A S S  
0.254 0.914 0.00983 0.00983
where S = 0.00983 m3
f  1.112  6.6166  2.668 MPa

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

The force in tendon at normal, = 1210  2   99  1000  239.5 kN
2

2
Moment due to PT, M PT  FPTI (sag)  239.5 101.6 mm  1000  24.33 kN-m

F M M 258.2 117.08 24.33
f  PTI  D  PT   
A S S 0.254  0.914  0.00983 0.00983
f  1.112  11.910  2.475

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HK CP-2013 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
8m
3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
for the slab.
load is 4 kN/m2.
HK CP-2013 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
for this problem.

Shear at Grid B-2

ETABS 1.116 0.662 1.69
Calculated 1.105 0.625 1.77
COMPUTER FILE: HK CP-2013 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
d   250  26    250  38  2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 1.
u = 954+ 1554 + 954 + 1554 = 5016 mm
Y
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
327
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1554

point (x1, y1). Set
Side 4
D C

V= 1126.498 kN
M2 = 51.9908 kN-m
M3 = 45.7234 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
V  1.5M
x 
veff , x   f  
ud  Vy 
1126.498  103  1.5  51.9908  106 

veff , x   1.0    1.1049 (Govern)
5016  218  1126.498  103  954 
V  1.5M
y 
veff , y  f 
ud  Vx 
 
1126.498  103  1.5  45.7234  106 
veff , y   1.0    1.0705
5016  218  1126.498  103  1554 

1 1
0.79k1k 2  100 As  3  400  4
vc      = 0.3568 MPa
 m  bd   d 
1 1
 f  3  30  3
k2 =  cu  =   = 1.0627 > 1.0 OK
 25   25 
m = 1.25
1
 400  4
  = 1.16386 > 1 OK.
 d 
reinforcement.

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Average As =  9494.296  8314.486  2 = 8904.391 mm2
100 As
= 100  8904.391  8000  218  = 0.51057
bd
0.79  1.0  1.0627

  0.51057   1.16386 = 0.6247 MPa
1/ 3
vc 
1.25
BS 3.7.7.3 yields the value of v = 0.625 N/mm2 , and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 1.1049
v 0.6247

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HK CP-2013 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Hong Kong
CP-04 load combination factors, 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The
analysis, design is performed using the Hong Kong CP-04 code by ETABS and
HK CP-2013 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0


Modulus of elasticity Es = 2106 MPa


RESULTS COMPARISON
Reinforcement
Strip Area (sq-cm)
Load Moment
ETABS 27.197 5.853

Medium
A s ,min = 162.5 sq-mm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPUTER FILE: HK CP-2013 RC-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
m, steel = 1.15
b = 1000 mm
For the load combination, the w and M are calculated as follows:
w = (1.4wd + 1.6wt) b
wl12
M
8
As,min = 0.0013bwd
= 162.5 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 13.6 kN/m
M-strip = 27.2 kN-m
M
K = 0.05810 < 0.156
f cu bd 2
 K 
z  d  0.5  0.25    0.95d =116.3283

 0.9 
M
As  = 585.046 sq-mm > As,min
0.87 f y z
As = 5.850 sq-cm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
IS 456-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
IS 456-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
A-Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and




loads
RESULTS COMPARISON
IS 456-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
175.60 175.69 0.05%
19.53 19.775 1.25%
As (sq-cm)
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
COMPUTER FILE: IS 456-2000 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
IS 456-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
fck = 30MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe =1210 MPa
s = 1.15
c = 1.50
 = 0.36
xmax f  250
 = 0.42  0.53  0.05 y if 250  f y  415 MPa
d 165
xu ,max
 0.484
d
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L)  1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U  = 14.768   9.754  8 = 175.6 kN-m
2
IS 456-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS  from Table 11: fp = 1435 MPa
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT  AP ( f PS )  197.4 1435  1000  283.3 kN
M
bd  f ck
2
175.6
  0.3392
 0.914  0.229 2  0.36  30000 
xu 1  1  4  m 1  1  4  0.42  0.3392  x
   0.4094 > u ,max  0.484
d 2 2  0.42  d
 x 
z  d 1   u   229 1  0.42  0.4094    189.6 mm
 d
Mu 175.6
ANET   1e6   2663 mm 2
 fy /  s  z  400 1.15189.6
 f   1435 
As = ANET  AP  P   2663  198    1953 mm
2
 fy   400 
 
2
F M  M PT 257.4 65.04  26.23
A S 
0.254 0.914  0.00983
where S=0.00983m3
f  1.109  3.948 MPa
IS 456-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

2

2

F M  M PT 238.8 117.08  24.37
f  PTI  D  L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  9.431
IS 456-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
IS 456-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
8m
3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
for the slab.
load is 4 kN/m2.
IS 456-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
and D/C ratio obtained in ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear stress
ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for
this problem.

Shear at Grid B-2

ETABS 1.793 1.141 1.57
Calculated 1.792 1.141 1.57
COMPUTER FILE: IS 456-2000 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
IS 456-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
d   250  26    250  38  2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 1.
b0 = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
Y
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
109
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1118

point (x1, y1). Set
Side 4 109
D C
 V2 1
1
 0.495
 2  1118
1  
 3  518
 V3 1
1
 0.312
 2  518
1  
 3  1118
IS 456-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
x2 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 0 559 0 559 N.A.
L 1118 518 1118 518 b0 = 3272
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
Ld 243724 112924 243724 112924 713296
Ldx2 63124516 0 63124516 0 0
Ldy2 0 63124516 0 63124516 0
x3 
 Ldx 2

0
 0 mm
Ld 713296
y3 
 Ldy 2

0
 0 mm
Ld 713296
L 1118 518 1118 518 N.A.
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
x2  x3 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2  y3 0 559 0 559 N.A.
IXX 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 1.23E+11
IYY 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 3.86E+10
IXY 0 0 0 0 0

VU = 1126.498 kN
 V2 MU2 = 25.725 kN-m
 V3 MU3 = 14.272 kN-m
IS 456-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
1126.498  103 25.725  10 3.86  10  559  0    0   259  0  

6 10
vU   
3272  218 1.23  1011  3.86  1010    0 2
14.272  106 1.23  1011  259  0    0   559  0  
1.23  1011  3.86  1010    0 2
vU = 1.5793  0.1169  0.0958 = 1.3666 N/mm2 at point A
1126.498  103 25.725  10 3.86  10  559  0    0   259  0  

6 10
vU   
3272  218 1.23  1011  3.86  1010    0 2
14.272  106 1.23  1011  259  0    0   559  0  
1.23  1011  3.86  1010    0 2
vU = 1.5793  0.1169 + 0.0958 =1.5582 N/mm2 at point B
1126.498  103 25.725  10 3.86  10  559  0    0   259  0  

6 10
vU   
3272  218 1.23  1011  3.86  1010    0 2
14.272  106 1.23  1011  259  0    0   559  0  
1.23  1011  3.86  1010    0 2
vU = 1.5793 + 0.1169 + 0.0958 = 1.792 N/mm2 at point C
1126.498  103 25.725  10 3.86  10  559  0    0   259  0  

6 10
vU   
3272  218 1.23  1011  3.86  1010    0 2
14.272  106 1.23  1011  259  0    0   559  0  
1.23  1011  3.86  1010    0 2
vU = 1.5793 + 0.1169  0.0958 = 1.6004 N/mm2 at point D
IS 456-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
ks = 0.5 + c  1.0 = 0.833 (IS 31.6.3.1)
c = 0.25 = 1.127 N/mm 2
(IS 31.6.3.1)
vc = ks c= 1.141 N/mm2 (IS 31.6.3.1)
CSA 13.3.4.1 yields the smallest value of vc = 1.141 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 1.792
vc 1.141
IS 456-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
IS 456-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the IS 456-00
analysis, design was performed using the IS 456-00 code by ETABS and also by
hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design reinforcements
computed using the two methods.
IS 456-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0




RESULTS COMPARISON
also shows the comparison of design reinforcements.
Strip Reinforcement Area (sq-cm)

Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+ As-
ETABS 26.997 5.830 --

Medium
Calculated 27.000 5.830 --
A s ,min = 230.978 sq-mm
IS 456-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPUTER FILE: IS 456-2000 RC-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
IS 456-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
s = 1.15
c = 1.50
 = 0.36
 = 0.42
b = 1000 mm
w = (1.5wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
M
8
0.85
As ,min  bd
fy
= 230.978 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 13.5 kN/m
M-strip = 27.0 kN-m
0.53 if f y  250 MPa


0.53  0.05 f y  250 if 250  f y  415 MPa
xu ,max  165

d 0.48  0.02 f y  415 if 415  f y  500 MPa
 85
0.46 if f y  500 MPa

IS 456-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
xu ,max
 0.466
d
Mu
m
bd 2f ck
= 0.16
xu 1  1  4  m x
 = 0.1727488 < u ,max
d 2 d
 x 
z  d 1   u  . = 115.9307 mm
 d
Mu
As  , = 583.027 sq-mm > As,min
 fy /  s  z
As = 5.830 sq-cm
IS 456-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
NTC 2008 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
NTC 2008 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and




loads.
RESULTS COMPARISON

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
165.90 165.93 0.02%
5.057 5.057 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
7.817 7.818 0.01%
5.759 5.760 0.02%
Method Design Moment (kN-m) As+
ETABS 165.9 16.40
COMPUTER FILE: NTC 2008 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15
  1.0 for fck ≤ 50 MPa
  0.8 for fck ≤ 50 MPa
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L)  1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
wl12
= 13.948   9.754  8 = 165.9 kN-m
2
Ultimate Moment, M U 
8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 f A 
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS  f SE  7000d 1  1.36 PU P  l
 fCK bd 
 1862(198)  
 1210  7000(229) 1  1.36  9754 
 30(914)  229  
 1361 MPa

M
bd 2f cd
165.9
  0.1731
 0.914  0.229 2 1  30000 1.50 
  1  1  2m = 1  1  2(0.1731)  0.1914
  f bd   1(30 /1.5)(914)(229) 
2
 f yd   400 /1.15 
 
 1366 
2
 400 
 1361 
AS  2303  198    1629 mm
2
 400 

The force in the tendon at transfer = 1304 197.4  1000  257.4 kN
2
F M  M PT 257.4 65.04  26.23
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
f  1.109  3.948 MPa


The force in tendon at normal = 1210 197.4  1000  238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load M D  5.984  0.914  9.754  8  65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to live load M L  4.788  0.914  9.754  8  52.04 kN-m

2

F M  M PT 238.8 117.08  24.37
f  PTI  D  L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  9.431

2

2

F M  M PT 238.9 91.06  24.33
f  PTI  D  0.5 L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  6.788

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
NTC 2008 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
8m
3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
to the Y-axis. Thick shell properties are used for the slab.
load is 4 kN/m2.
NTC 2008 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
for this problem.

Shear at Grid B-2

ETABS 1.117 0.611 1.83
Calculated 1.092 0.578 1.89
COMPUTER FILE: NTC 2008 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation for Interior Column using ETABS Method
d   250  26    250  38  2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
u1 = u = 2300 + 2900 + 2436 = 5139.468 mm
Y Critical section for

punching shear
436 150 150 436 shown dashed.
A B
Column
Side 2 436
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1772
450
Center of column is
point (x1, y1). Set
436
this equal to (0,0). Side 4
D C

VEd = 1112.197 kN
k2MEd2 = 38.933 kN-m
k3MEd3 = 17.633 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
VEd  k2 M Ed ,2u1 k3 M Ed ,3u1 
vEd  1    (EC2 6.4.4(2))
ud  VEdW1,2 VEdW1,3 
c12
W1   c1c2  4c2 d  16d 2  2 dc1
2
9002
W1,2   300  900  4  300  218  16  2182  2  218  900
2
W1,2  2,929, 744.957 mm2
9002
W1,3  3  900  300  4  900  218  16  2182  2  218  300
2
W1,2  2, 271,104.319 mm2
VEd  k2 M Ed ,2u1 k3 M Ed ,3u1 

vEd  1   
ud  VEdW1,2 VEdW1,3 
1112.197  103  38.933  106  5139.468 17.633  106  5139.468 

vEd  1   
5139.468  218  1112.197  103  2929744.957 1112.197  103  2271104.319 
vEd  1.089 N/mm2
Thus vmax = 1.089 N/mm2
C Rd ,c  0.18  c = 0.18/1.5 = 0.12 (EC2 6.4.4)
The shear stress carried by the concrete, VRd,c, is calculated as:
VRd ,c  C Rd ,c k 100 1 fck   k1 cp 

13
(EC2 6.4.4)
with a minimum of:
vRd ,c   vmin  k1 cp  (EC2 6.4.4)
200
k  1  2.0 = 1.9578 (EC2 6.4.4(1))
d
k1 = 0.15. (EC2 6.2.2(1))

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
As1
1 =  0.02
bw d

Average As =  9204.985  8078.337  2 = 8641.661 mm2
1 = 8641.661  8000  218  = 0.004955  0.02
 min  0.035k 3 2 f ck 1 2 = 0.035 1.9578   30 

3/2 1/2
= 0.525 N/mm2
vRd ,c   0.12  1.9578 100  0.004955  30   0  = 0.5777 N/mm

13 2
v max 1.089
vRd ,c 0.5777

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
NTC 2008 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Italian NTC
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. These moments
are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the Italian
NTC 2008 code by ETABS and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the
comparison of the design reinforcements computed by the two methods.
NTC 2008 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0




RESULTS COMPARISON

Strip Moment
Method (kN-m) As+
ETABS 25.797 5.400
A s ,min = 204.642 sq-mm
COMPUTER FILE: NTC 2008 RC-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
  1.0 for fck ≤ 50 MPa
  0.8 for fck ≤ 50 MPa
b = 1000 mm
w = (1.35wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
M
8
 0.0013bw d

As ,min  max  fctm
 0 . 26 bd
 f yk
= 204.642 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.9 kN/m
M-strip = 25.8 kN-m
M-design= 25.8347 kN-m
m, steel = 1.15

αcc = 0.85:
M 25.8347  106
m  = 0.097260
bd 2 f cd 1000  1252  1.0  0.85  30 /1.5
x  x 
mlim     1     = 0.48
 d  lim  2  d  lim 

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
x   k1
   for fck  50 MPa = 0.60
 d  lim k2
k1 = 0.40
k2 = (0.6 + 0.0014/εcu2) = 1.00
  1  1  2m = 0.10251
 f bd 
As    cd  = 544.61 sq-mm > As,min
 f 
 yd 
As = 5.446 sq-cm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
NZS 3101-2006 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
mm thick by 915 mm wide and spans 9754 mm as, shown in shown in Figure 1.
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
NZS 3101-2006 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
were compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification and




loads.
RESULTS COMPARISON

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
156.12 156.17 0.02%
14.96 15.08 0.74%
As (sq-cm)
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
7.817 7.818 0.01%
5.759 5.760 0.02%
COMPUTER FILE: NZS 3101-2006 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
b = 0.85
1  0.85 for f c  55 MPa
1  0.85 for f c  30,
c
cb  d = 214.7
 c  f y Es
amax = 0.751cb = 136.8 mm
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m  23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D)  1.2 = 7.181kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L)  1.5 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U  = 13.128  (9.754)2/8 = 156.12 kN-m
8
f'c
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS  f SE  70 
300  P
30
 1210  70 
300  0.00095 
 1385 MPa  f SE  200  1410 MPa
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT  AP  f PS   2  99 1385  1000  274.23 kN
2M *
 f 'c  b
2 156.12 
 0.229  0.2292  1e3   37.48 mm
0.85  30000  0.85  0.914 
 a  37.48 
M ult , PT  Fult , PT  d     274.23  229    0.85  1000  49.01 kN-m
 2  2 

M net 107.0
AS   (1e6)  1496 mm 2
 f y (d  ) 0.85(400000)  0.229 
a 0.03748 

2  2 
2
F M  M PT 257.4 65.04  26.23
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
f  1.109  3.948MPa
2

2

F M  M PT 238.8 117.08  24.37
f  PTI  D  L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  9.431
2

2

F M  M PT 238.9 91.06  24.33
f  PTI  D  0.5 L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  6.788

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
NZS 3101-2006 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
shown in Figure 1.
A B C D 0 .3 m
0 .3 m
8 m 8 m 8 m
0 .6 m
4
0 .2 5 m t h ic k f la t s la b
8 m
C o lu m n s a r e 0 .3 m x 0 .9 m
w it h lo n g s id e p a r a lle l
8 m
t o t h e Y - a x is , t y p ic a l
2 C o n c r e t e P r o p e r t ie s
3
U n it w e ig h t = 2 4 k N /m
2
f 'c = 3 0 N /m m
8 m
Y
L o a d in g
2
D L = S e lf w e ig h t + 1 .0 k N /m
2
X L L = 4 .0 k N /m
1
0 .6 m
for the slab.
load is 4 kN/m2.
NZS 3101-2006 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
for this problem.

Shear at Grid B-2

ETABS 1.793 1.141 1.57
Calculated 1.792 1.141 1.57
COMPUTER FILE: NZS 3101-2006 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
d   259  26    250  38  2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
518 N o t e : A ll d im e n s io n s in m illim e t e r s
Y
C r it ic a l s e c t io n f o r
109 150 150 109 p u n c h in g s h e a r s h o w n
dashed.
A B
C o lu m n S id e 2
109
S id e 1
S id e 3
450
X
1118
C e n t e r o f c o lu m n is 450
p o in t ( x 1 , y 1 ) . S e t
t h is e q u a l t o ( 0 ,0 ) .
109
S id e 4
D
C

1
V 2 1  0 .4 9 5
 2  1118
1  
 3  518

1
V 3 1  0 .3 1 2
 2  518
1  
 3  1118

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
x2 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 0 559 0 559 N.A.
L 1118 518 1118 518 b0 = 3272
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
Ld 243724 112924 243724 112924 713296
Ldx2 63124516 0 63124516 0 0
Ldy2 0 63124516 0 63124516 0
x3 
 Ldx2

0
 0 mm
Ld 713296
y3 
 Ldy 2

0
 0 mm
Ld 713296
L 1118 518 1118 518 N.A.
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
x2  x3 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2  y3 0 559 0 559 N.A.
IXX 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 1.23E+11
IYY 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 3.86E+10
IXY 0 0 0 0 0

VU = 1126.498 kN
 V 2 MU2 = 25.725 kN-m
 V 3 MU3 = 14.272 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

2 5 .7 2 5  1 0  3 .8 6  1 0 559  0    0    2 5 9  0  
6 10
1 1 2 6 .4 9 8  1 0
3
vU   
 1 .2 3  1 0 1 1   3 .8 6  1 0 1 0    0 
2
3272  218
1 4 .2 7 2  1 0 1 .2 3  1 0  259  0    0   5 5 9  0  
6 11
 1 .2 3  1 0 1 1   3 .8 6  1 0 1 0    0 
2
vU = 1.5793  0.1169  0.0958 = 1.3666 N/mm2 at point A

2 5 .7 2 5  1 0  3 .8 6  1 0 559  0    0   2 5 9  0  
6 10
1 1 2 6 .4 9 8  1 0
3
vU   
 1 .2 3  1 0 1 1   3 .8 6  1 0 1 0    0 
2
3272  218
1 4 .2 7 2  1 0 1 .2 3  1 0 259  0    0   5 5 9  0  
6 11
 1 .2 3  1 0 1 1   3 .8 6  1 0 1 0    0 
2
vU = 1.5793  0.1169 + 0.0958 =1.5582 N/mm2 at point B

2 5 .7 2 5  1 0  3 .8 6  1 0  559  0    0   2 5 9  0  
6 10
1 1 2 6 .4 9 8  1 0
3
vU   
 1 .2 3  1 0 1 1   3 .8 6  1 0 1 0    0 
2
3272  218
1 4 .2 7 2  1 0 1 .2 3  1 0 259  0    0    5 5 9  0  
6 11
 1 .2 3  1 0 1 1   3 .8 6  1 0 1 0    0 
2
vU = 1.5793 + 0.1169 + 0.0958 = 1.792 N/mm2 at point C

2 5 .7 2 5  1 0  3 .8 6  1 0  559  0    0    2 5 9  0  
6 10
1 1 2 6 .4 9 8  1 0
3
vU   
 1 .2 3  1 0 1 1   3 .8 6  1 0 1 0    0 
2
3272  218
1 4 .2 7 2  1 0 1 .2 3  1 0  259  0    0    5 5 9  0  
6 11
 1 .2 3  1 0 1 1   3 .8 6  1 0 1 0    0 
2
vU = 1.5793 + 0.1169  0.0958 = 1.6004 N/mm2 at point D

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of NZS 3101-06, with the bo and u
terms removed to convert force to stress.
1  2 

 1   f c
6 c 

 1   sd 
 v v  m in   1   f c
 = 1.141N/mm2 per (NZS 12.7.3.2)
 6 b 0 
1
  f c
 3
NZS 12.7.3.2 yields the smallest value of  vv = 1.141 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 1 .7 9 2
S h e a r R a tio    1 .5 7
 vv 1 .1 4 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
NZS 3101-2006 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the NZS 3101-
06 load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model
is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
analysis, design is performed using the NZS 3101-06 code by ETABS and also
by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
NZS 3101-2006 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0




RESULTS COMPARISON
also shows the comparison of design reinforcements.
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
ETABS 24.597 5.238

Medium
A s ,min = 380.43 sq-mm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPUTER FILE: NZS 3101-2006 RC-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
b = 0.85
b = 1000 mm
1  0.85 for f c  55MPa
1  0.85 for f c  30,
c
cb  d = 70.7547
 c  f y Es
amax = 0.751cb= 45.106 mm
w = (1.2wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
Mu 
8
 f c
 bw d  372.09 sq-mm
 4 fy
As ,min  max 
 1.4 bw d  380.43 sq-mm
 fy

= 380.43 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.3 kN/m
M*-strip = 24.6 kN-m
M*-design = 24.6331 kN-m
2 M*
a  d  d2  = 9.449 mm < amax
1 f  c bb

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
M*
As  = 523.799 sq-mm > As,min
 a
b f y  d  
 2
As = 5.238 sq-cm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
SS CP 65-99 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
SS CP 65-99 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
post-tensioning forces are as follows.
calculations are compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification
and validation of the ETABS results.




loads
RESULTS COMPARISON

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
174.4 174.4 0.00%
19.65 19.80 0.76%
As (sq-cm)
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
COMPUTER FILE: SS CP 65-1999 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:

fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L)  1.6 = 7.661 kN/m2 (Lu)
wl12
8

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
7000  f pu Ap 
l/d  f cu bd 
7000  1862(198) 
 1210  1  1.7 
9754 / 229  30(914)(229) 
 1358 MPa  0.7 f pu  1303 MPa
M 174.4
K 2
=  0.1213 < 0.156
f cu bd 30000(0.914)(0.229) 2
 K 
z  d  0.5  0.25    0.95d = 192.2 mm
 0.9 

M ult , PT  Fult , PT ( z ) /   258.0  0.192  1.15  43.12 kN-m
Net Moment to be resisted by As,
M NET  MU  M PT
 174.4  43.12  131.28 kN-m

M NET 131.28
As  = 1e6   1965 mm 2
0.87 f y z X 0.87  400 192 
2
F M  M PT 257.4 65.04  26.23
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
f  1.109  3.948 MPa

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
2

2

F M  M PT 238.8 117.08  24.37
f  PTI  D  L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  9.431

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
SS CP 65-1999 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
8m
3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
for the slab.
load is 4 kN/m2.
SS CP 65-1999 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
for this problem.

Shear at Grid B-2

ETABS 1.116 0.662 1.69
Calculated 1.105 0.620 1.77
COMPUTER FILE: SS CP 65-1999 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
d   250  26    250  38  2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 1.
u = 954+ 1554 + 954 + 1554 = 5016 mm
Y
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
327
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1554

point (x1, y1). Set
Side 4
D C

V= 1126.498 kN
M2 = 51.9908 kN-m
M3 = 45.7234 kN-m

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
V  1.5M
x 
veff , x   f   (CP 3.7.7.3)
ud  Vy 
1126.498  103  1.5  51.9908  106 

veff , x   1.0    1.1049 (Govern)
5016  218  1126.498  103  954 
V  1.5M
y 
veff , y  f 
ud  Vx 
 
1126.498  103  1.5  45.7234  106 
veff , y   1.0    1.0705
5016  218  1126.498  103  1554 

1 1
0.79k1k 2  100 As  3  400  4
vc      = 0.3568 MPa
 m  bd   d 
1 1
 f  3  30  3
k2 =  cu  =   = 1.0627 > 1.0 OK
 25   25 
m = 1.25
1
 400  4
  = 1.16386 > 1 OK.
 d 
reinforcement.
Average As = (9494.296+8314.486)/2 = 8904.391 mm2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
100 As
= 100  8904.391/(8000  218) = 0.51057
bd
0.79  1.0  1.0627

  0.51057   1.16386 = 0.6247 MPa
1/ 3
vc 
1.25
BS 3.7.7.3 yields the value of v = 0.625 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 1.1049
v 0.6247

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
SS CP 65-1999 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 KN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Singapore
CP 65-99 load combination factors, 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The
the analysis, design is performed using the Singapore CP 65-99 code by ETABS
and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
SS CP 65-1999 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0




RESULTS COMPARISON
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
ETABS 27.197 5.853

Medium
A s ,min = 162.5 sq-mm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPUTER FILE: SS CP 65-1999 RC EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
m, steel = 1.15
b = 1000 mm
For each load combination, the w and M are calculated as follows:
w = (1.4wd + 1.6wt) b
wl12
M
8
As ,m in  0 . 0013bw d
= 162.5 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 13.6 kN/m
M-strip = 27.2 kN-m
M
K = 0.05810 < 0.156
f cu bd 2
 K 
z  d  0.5  0.25    0.95d =116.3283
 0.9 
M
As  = 585.046 sq-mm > As,min
0.87 f y z
As = 5.850 sq-cm

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
TS 500-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
TS 500-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
post-tensioning forces are as follows.
calculations are compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification
and validation of the ETABS results.

Concrete strength f ck = 30 MPa

Yield strength of steel fyk = 400 MPa


loads
RESULTS COMPARISON
TS 500-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
INDEPENDENT ETABS
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
174.4 174.4 0.00%
14.88 14.90 0.13%
As (sq-cm)
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
COMPUTER FILE: TS 500-2000 PT-SL EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
TS 500-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:

fck = 30MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fyk = 400MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L)  1.6 = 7.661 kN/m2 (Lu)
wl12
8
TS 500-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
 f A 
Ultimate Stress in strand, f Pd  f pe  7000d  1  1.36 PU P  l
 fCK bd 
 1862(198)  
 1210  7000(229) 1  1.36  9754 
 30(914)  229  
 1361 MPa
2M d
0.85 f cd b
2 174.4 
 0.229  0.2292  1e3  55.816 mm
0.85  20000  0.914 

 a  55.816 
M ult , PT  Fult , PT  d    269.5  229   1000  54.194 kN-m
 2  2 
M net 120.206  106

AS    1488.4 mm 2
 a   54.194 
f yd  d    400   229  
 2  2 

M 174.4
K 2
=  0.1819 < 0.156
f cu bd 30000 1.5(0.914)(0.229) 2
 K 
z  d  0.5  0.25    0.95d = 192.2 mm

 0 .9 

M ult , PT  Fult , PT ( z ) /   258.0  0.192  1.15  43.12 kN-m
Net Moment to be resisted by As,
TS 500-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
M NET  MU  M PT
 174.4  43.12  131.28 kN-m

M 131.28
As  NET = 1e6   1965 mm 2
f yd z X  
0.87 400 192 
2
F M  M PT 257.4 65.04  26.23
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
f  1.109  3.948 MPa
2

2

F M  M PT 238.8 117.08  24.37
f  PTI  D  L  
A S 0.254  0.914  0.00983
f  1.029  9.431
TS 500-2000 PT-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
TS 500-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
8m
3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a fck of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
load is 4 kN/m2.
TS 500-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
for this problem.

Shear at Grid B-2

ETABS 1.695 1.278 1.33
Calculated 1.690 1.278 1.32
COMPUTER FILE: TS 500-2000 RC-PN EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
TS 500-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
d   250  26    250  38  2 = 218 mm
b0 = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
Y
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
109
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1118

point (x1, y1). Set
Side 4 109
D C
1
2 1   0.595
1118
1
518
1
3  1   0.405
518
1
1118
TS 500-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

x2 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 0 559 0 559 N.A.
L 1118 518 1118 518 b0 = 3272
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
Ld 243724 112924 243724 112924 713296
Ldx2 63124516 0 63124516 0 0
Ldy2 0 63124516 0 63124516 0
x3 
 Ldx 2

0
 0 mm
Ld 713296
y3 
 Ldy 2

0
 0 mm
Ld 713296
L 1118 518 1118 518 N.A.
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
x2  x3 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2  y3 0 559 0 559 N.A.
Equations 5b, 6b 5a, 6a 5b, 6b 5a, 6a N.A.
IXX 5.43E+07 6.31E+07 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 1.23E+11
IYY 6.31E+07 1.39E07 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 3.86E+10

Vd= 1126.498 kN
0.4Md,2 = -8.4226 kN-m
0.4M d,3 = 10.8821 kN-m
V pd  0.4M pd ,2u p d 0.4M pd ,3u p d 
v pd  1    , (TS 8.3.1)
u p d  V pdWm,2 V pdWm,3 
TS 500-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
1126.498  103 8.423  10 3.86  10  559  0  

6 10
vU   
3272  218 1.23  1011  3.86  1010 
10.882  106 1.23  1011  259  0  
1.23  1011  3.86  1010 
vU = 1.5793  0.0383  0.0730 = 1.4680 N/mm2 at point A
1126.498  103 8.423  10 3.86  10  559  0  

6 10
vU   
3272  218 1.23  1011  3.86  1010 
10.8821  106 1.23  1011  259  0  
1.23  1011  3.86  1010 
vU = 1.5793  0.0383 + 0.0730 =1.614 N/mm2 at point B
1126.498  103 8.423  10 3.86  10  559  0  

6 10
vU   
3272  218 1.23  1011  3.86  1010 
10.882  106 1.23  1011  259  0  
1.23  1011  3.86  1010 
vU = 1.5793 + 0.0383 + 0.0730 = 1.690 N/mm2 at point C
1126.498  103 8.423  10 3.86  10  559  0  

6 10
vU   
3272  218 1.23  1011  3.86  1010 
10.8821  106 1.23  1011  259  0  
1.23  1011  3.86  1010 
vU = 1.5793 + 0.383  0.0730 = 1.5446 N/mm2 at point D
TS 500-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
The concrete punching shear stress capacity of a section with punching shear
reinforcement is limited to:
v pr  f ctd  0.35 f ck  c (TS 8.3.1)
v pr  f ctd  0.35 30 1.5  1.278 N/mm

2
vpd 1.690
v pr 1.278
TS 500-2000 RC-PN EXAMPLE 001 - 6

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
TS 500-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 KN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Turkish TS
500-2000 load combination factors, 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The
the analysis, design is performed using the Turkish TS 500-2000 code by ETABS
and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
TS 500-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 1

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0


Yield strength of steel fyk = 460 MPa


RESULTS COMPARISON
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
ETABS 27.197 5.760

Medium
A s ,min = 162.5 sq-mm
TS 500-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 2

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPUTER FILE: TS 500-2000 RC EX001.EDB
CONCLUSION
TS 500-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 3

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
m, steel = 1.15
f ck 30
f cd    20
 mc 1.5
f yk 460
f yd    400
 ms 1.15
 cu Es
cb  d = 75 mm
 cu Es  f yd
amax = 0.85k1cb = 52.275 mm
where, k1  0.85  0.006  f ck  25   0.82 , 0.70  k1  0.85
0.8 f ctd
As ,min  bd  325.9 mm 2
f yd
0.35 f cu 0.35 30
Where f ctd    1.278
 mc 1.5
For each load combination, the w and M are calculated as follows:

w = (1.4wd + 1.6wt) b
wl12
M
8
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 13.6 kN/m
M-strip = 27.2 kN-m
TS 500-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 4

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
2 Md
a  d  d2  (TS 7.1)
0.85 fcd b
2  27.2366  106
a  125  1252   13.5518 mm
0.85  20  1000
If a  amax (TS 7.1), the area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
Md 27.2366  106
As    576 mm 2
 a  13.5518 
f yd  d   400 125  
 2  2 
TS 500-2000 RC-SL EXAMPLE 001 - 5

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 435, 1984. Deflection of Two-way Reinforced Concrete Floor
Systems: State-of-the-Art Report, (ACI 435-6R-74), (Reaffirmed 1984),
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
ACI Committee 336, 1988. Suggested Analysis and Design Procedures for
Combined Footings and Mats (ACI 336-2R-88), American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan.
ACI Committee 340, 1991. Design Handbook In Accordance with the Strength
Design Method of ACI 318-89, Volume 3, Two-way Slabs (ACI 340.4R-91),
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
ACI Committee 340, 1997. ACI Design Handbook, Design of Structural Reinforced
Concrete Elements in Accordance with the Strength Design Method of ACI
318-95 (ACI 340R-97), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
ACI Committee 318, 1995. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 318-95) and Commentary (ACI 318R-95), American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan.
American Institute of Steel Construction. 1989. Manual of Steel Construction-
Allowable 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.
Corley, W. G. and J. O. Jirsa, 1970. Equivalent Frame Analysis for Slab Design,
ACI Journal, Vol. 67, No. 11, November.
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.
REFERENCES 1
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
Gamble, W. L., M. A. Sozen, and C. P. Siess, 1969. Tests of a Two-way Reinforced

Concrete Floor Slab, Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the
ASCE, Vol. 95, ST6, June.
Guralnick, S. A. and R. W. LaFraugh, 1963. Laboratory Study of a 45-Foot Square
Flat Plate Structure, ACI Journal, Vol. 60, No.9, September.
Hanson, R.D. 1993. Supplemental Damping for Improved Seismic Performance.
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 9, Number 3, 319-334.
Hatcher, D. S., M. A. Sozen, and C. P. Siess, 1965. Test of a Reinforced Concrete
Flat Plate, Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol.
91, ST5, October.
Hatcher, D. S., M. A. Sozen, and C. P. Siess, 1969. Test of a Reinforced Concrete
Flat Slab, Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol.
95, ST6, June.
International Code Council, Inc. 2000. International Building Code. Falls Church,
Virginia.
International Conference of Building Officials. 1997. Uniform Building Code.
Whittier, California.
Jirsa, J. O., M. A. Sozen, and C. P. Siess, 1966. Test of a Flat Slab Reinforced with
Welded Wire Fabric, Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the
ASCE, Vol. 92, ST3, June.
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.
PCA, 1990. Notes on ACI 318-89 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete with Design Applications, Portland Cement Association, Skokie,
Illinois.
PCA, 1996. Notes on ACI 318-95 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete with Design Applications, Portland Cement Association, Skokie,
Illinois.
REFERENCES 2
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
Peterson, F.E. 1981. EASE2, Elastic Analysis for Structural Engineering - Example
Problem Manual. Engineering Analysis Corporation. Berkeley, California.
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.

Roark, Raymond J., and Warren C. Young, 1975. Formulas for Stress and Strain,
Fifth Edition, Table 3, p. 107-108. McGraw-Hill, 2 Penn Plaza, New York,
NY 10121-0101.
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.
Timoshenko, S. and S. Woinowsky-Krieger, 1959, Theory of Plates and Shells,
McGraw-Hill, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121-0101.
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.
Ugural, A. C. 1981, Stresses in Plates and Shells, McGraw-Hill, 2 Penn Plaza, New
York, NY 10121-0101.
Vanderbilt, M. D., M. A. Sozen, and C. P. Siess, 1969. Tests of a Modified
Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Slab, Journal of the Structural Division,
Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 95, ST6, June.
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 3

Verification Example Etabs PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Verification Example Etabs PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Software Verification Examples

Software Verification Examples

ISO ETA020218M6 Rev. 0

Copyright  Computers & Structures, Inc., 1978-2018

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

Computers & Structures, Inc.

info@csiamerica.com (for general information)

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

THE INFORMATION PRODUCED BY THE SOFTWARE MUST BE CHECKED BY A

2 Three-Story Plane Frame, Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis

3 Three-Story Plane Frame, Code-Specific Static Lateral Load Analysis

4 Single Story Three-Dimensional Frame, Dynamic Response Spectrum

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

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

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

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

9 Two-Story Three-Dimensional Unsymmetrical Building Frame, Dynamic

10 Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements, Nonlinear Time History

11 Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements, Nonlinear Time

12 Pounding of Two Planar Frames, Nonlinear Time History Analysis

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

14 Friction Pendulum Base-Isolated 3D Frame, Nonlinear Time History

15 Wall Object Behavior, Static Lateral Loads Analysis

AISC 360-05 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending

AISC 360-05 Example 002 Build-up Wide Flange Member Under

AISC 360-10 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending

AISC 360-10 Example 002 Build-up Wide Flange Member Under

AISC 360-16 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending

AISC 360-16 Example 002 Build-up Wide Flange Member Under

AISC ASD-89 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending

AISC ASD-89 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Compression

AISC LRFD-93 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending

AISC LRFD-93 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Combined

AS 4100-1998 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression

AS 4100-1998 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Bending

AS 4100-1998 Example 003 Wide Flange Member Under Combined

BS 5950-2000 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending

BS 5950-2000 Example 002 Square Tube Member Under Compression &

EC 3-2005 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Combined

EN 3-2005 Example 002 Wide Flange Section Under Bending

EN 3-2005 Example 003 Wide Flange Section Under Combined

IS 800-2007 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression

IS 800-2007 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Bending

IS 800-2007 Example 003 Wide Flange Member Under Combined

KBC 2009 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending

KBC 2009 Example 002 Build-up Wide Flange Member Under

NTC 2008 Example 001 Wide Flange Section Under Combined

NTC 2008 Example 002 Wide Flange Section Under Combined

NZS 3404-1997 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression

NZS 3404-1997 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Bending

NZS 3404-1997 Example 003 Wide Flange Member Under Combined

ACI 318-08 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing

AS 3600-2009 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing

AS 3600-2009 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column

BS 8110-1997 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing

BS 8110-1997 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column

CSA A23.3-04 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing

CSA A23.3-14 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing

EN 2-2004 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing

EN 2-2004 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column

HK CP-2013 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing

HK CP-2013 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column

IS 456-2000 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing