‘1292020 Design Comparison between SAFE and SAP2000 - Civil Engineering Community Design Comparison between SAFE and SAP2000 FOR CASE STUDIES USING SAP2000 - SAFE NODAL METHOD AND SAFE INTERNAL METHOD (WOOD- [ARMER) FOR THIN AND THICK PLATES Unjustiied reinforcement when using SAFE models for rat foundations supported on soil canbe detectod in case of kregular geometry of models, unsymmetrical gids of columns, shear walls near the edge of the rat, ete. (Wood- Armer) method is preferred in thick plate analysis in case of point loads (Raft foundations, Transfer slabs). ysis of SAPZ000 and the analysis of SAFE using both the nodal method and the “This isto compare betwaen th internal method (Wood-Armar} ‘THICK PLATE EXAMPLE ‘Att foundation on sol supporting two core walls near the edge and reclangular grids of walls and columns, was ‘modeled asa thick plato on SAP2000 and on SAFE VB Privacy hitpsswww-civlax comidesign-comparison-safe-sap2000) 18‘1292020 Design Comparison between SAFE and SAP2000 - Civil Engineering Community Raft Model Geometry on SAFE Raft Model Geometry on SAP2000 MOMENTS IN X-DIRECTION Yo compare the moments in X direction between SAPZ000 model and SAFE modal, the diferance under the right cote wali about 0.4% (69.5tm for SAPZO00 and 68.311 for SAFE) and between the two core walls about 0.3% (3.961m for SAP2000 and 34.06. for SAFE) and directly under a column about 1.3% (148.481 for SAP2000 and 150.401 for SAFE). The above differences are uly minimal and can be neglected. X Momont on SAP2000 Mode! htpsswww-civlax comidesign-comparison-safe-sap2000/ Privacy 26‘1292020 Design Comparison between SAFE and SAP20O0 - Civil Engineering Community .X Moment on SAFE Mod! ‘My Moment on SAP2000 Mode ‘May Moment on SAFE Mode! Assuming thatthe bending moments aferences between SAP2000 model and SAFE model are insignificant al over the raft model, SAFE model wil lioctly calculate the strips bending moments (column sips and mide sips), using fan average value along the width of te strip htpsswww-civlaxcomidesign-comparison-safe-sap2000)‘1292020 Design Comparison between SAFE and SAP20O0 - Civil Engineering Community X Sti Bending Moment From SAFE Model Particularly the two values specified above will be considered: 1, 70.594 Lm on a 2.22m wide stip and a raft thicknoss of 1.0m => Reint, should be 27.13 ema Reint, should be 25.61 om2 2. 66.700 Lm an a 2.95m wide sip and a raft thickness of 1.0m ‘Atthese particular locations, the approximate averaging of Mxy on the considered strips is: 41. 18 Lm + 70.53 = 86.53 tm =>33.38 om of reinforcement 2.1L + 66,70 = 68.7 Lm => 26.4 em2 of weinforcement, X Stes Reinforcement From SAFE Model Using Nodal Method Considering the reinforcement computed by SAFE nodal methed above, the fllowing results were found: 1. 102.9 em2 ofrlnforcoment. 2.28.5 em? of reinforcement htpsshwww-civlax comidesign-comparison-safe-sap2000/ Privacy 46‘1r29r2020 Design Comparison between SAFE and SAP2000 - Civil Engineering Community } i X Sts Reinforcement From SAFE Model Using Internal Method (Wood-Armer) Considering the reinforcement computed by the SAFE internal method above ound: the following results were 1, 32. em2 of reinforcement 2, 26 em? of reinforcement, Considering tho above results, the use ofthe combination of bending moments in Wood-Armer SAFE method (Mbox + May) is converging with te hand calelatons using SAP2000 results. The nodal method inthis ease is giving “excessively conservative” reinforcement under the core walls, Conclusion: tis recommended to adopt the folowing analysis methods for each case described below: © For shel elements supporting point loads (ex. raft foundations and transfer slabs); Model the shel as thick plate and use the intemal moment method forthe design (Wood-Armer) © For shol elements supported on columns and wall, and having brogulartos in column grids, sab its, and ‘geometry: Use the intel moment method fo take into consideration the forsional moment Mey that shal not be neglected. + For slabs supported on columns and walls and having rogular column grids, sab its and geometry, thor i no ference whether to use the nodal method or the Internal moment method Inthe design, and this ls due fo the insignicant torsional moments Mxy in the slab; both methods should give approximately the same results Finally, it would be preferable to adopt the internal Wood-Armer method at all cases since it will always detect any torsional effects that might be neglected using nodal method, lading to under-design of structures. Civilax tps: com Civil is the Knowledge Base covering all disciptines in Civil Engineering. We aim to cose the gap to the Industey by improving the awareness about latest trends in Civil Engineering. fin Privacy htpsswww-civlax comidesign-comparison-safe-sap2000/‘1292020 Design Comparison between SAFE and SAP20O0 - Civil Engineering Community htpsshwww-civlax comidesign-comparison-safe-sap2000/ ae