0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

24 Aufrufe535 Seiten190896718 Etabs Software Verification

May 09, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

190896718 Etabs Software Verification

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

24 Aufrufe

190896718 Etabs Software Verification

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- The Woman Who Smashed Codes: A True Story of Love, Spies, and the Unlikely Heroine who Outwitted America's Enemies
- NIV, Holy Bible, eBook
- NIV, Holy Bible, eBook, Red Letter Edition
- Steve Jobs
- Cryptonomicon
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- Make Your Mind Up: My Guide to Finding Your Own Style, Life, and Motavation!
- Console Wars: Sega, Nintendo, and the Battle that Defined a Generation
- The Golden Notebook: A Novel
- Alibaba: The House That Jack Ma Built
- Life After Google: The Fall of Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy
- Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone
- Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone
- The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution
- Autonomous: A Novel
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 535

For ETABS 2013

Berkeley, California, USA June 2013

Copyright

All rights reserved.

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

The computer program ETABS and all associated documentation are proprietary and

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

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

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

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

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

publisher.

www.csiberkeley.com

support@csiberkeley.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.

HOWEVER, THE USER MUST EXPLICITLY UNDERSTAND THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF

THE SOFTWARE MODELING, ANALYSIS, AND DESIGN ALGORITHMS AND

COMPENSATE FOR THE ASPECTS THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED.

QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER MUST

INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE RESULTS AND TAKE PROFESSIONAL

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INFORMATION THAT IS USED.

Contents

Introduction

Methodology

Conclusions

Problems

Analysis Problems

1 Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads, Static Gravity Load Analysis

Analysis

Spectrum Analysis

Analysis

Response Spectrum Analysis

Analysis

i

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

History Analysis

Analysis

Design Examples

Steel Frame

Compression

Compression

Compression & Biaxial Bending

Compression & Bending

Bending

CSA S16-09 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression &

Bending

ii

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

CSA S16-09 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Compression &

Bending

Compression & Bending

Compression & Bending

Compression & Biaxial Bending

Compression & Bending

Compression & Bending

Wide Flange Member Under Bending

NZS 3404-1997 Example 003

Wide Flange Member Under Combined

Compression & Bending

Concrete Frame

ACI 318-08 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column

ACI 318-11 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing

ACI 318-11 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column

iii

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

CSA A23.3-04 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column

NTC 2008 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column

Rectangular Stress Distribution

KCI 1999 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column

Rectangular Stress Distribution

RCDF 2004 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column

NZS 3101-2006 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column

Shear Wall

ACI 318-11 WALL-001 P-M Interaction Check for Wall

iv

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Composite Beam

v

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

BS 5950-90 Example 001

Steel Designers Manual Sixth Edition Design of

Simply Supported Composite Beam

Edition Composite Beam

Design of Simply Supported Composite Beam

Composite Column

References

vi

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Revision

Number Date Description

0 19 Apr 2013 Initial release of ETABS 2013, Version 13.0.0

i

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

INTRODUCTION

This manual presents a set of simple building systems that have been analyzed using

ETABS 2013. The examples demonstrate some of the analytical capabilities of the ETABS

system.

The examples demonstrate the adequacy of the program for use in all applications,

including safety-related nuclear, as governed by 10CFR50 requirements as well as other

international QA standards, such as ISO 9000:2000 requirements.

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:

INTRODUCTION 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

E T A B S 2 0 1 3 R esu lt

P ercen t D ifferen ce 1 0 0 1

In d ep en d en t R esu lt

Summary of Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

loading and user specified lateral loads and section properties.

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

remaining seven showed acceptable agreement between ETABS 2013 and the cited

independent sources.

Design Steel Frame: Of the 26 Steel Frame Design problems, 17 showed exact

agreement while the remaining nine showed acceptable agreement between ETABS 2013

and the cited independent sources.

Design Concrete Frame: Of the 28 Concrete Frame Design problems, 16 showed exact

agreement while the remaining 12 shoes acceptable agreement between ETABS 2013 and

the cited independent sources.

Design Shear Wall: All 26 of the Shear Wall Design problems showed acceptable

agreement between ETABS 2013 and the cited independent sources.

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

agreement between ETABS 2013 and the cited independent sources.

acceptable agreement between ETABS 2013 and cited independent sources.

Summary of Examples 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

CONCLUSIONS

ETABS 2013 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.

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

consistent with current computer technology capabilities.

CONCLUSIONS 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 2013 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 2013 is not used; instead, the axial area and moment of inertia for each member

are explicitly input.

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

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

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

Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq.

Case 1

Case 2 10k/ft

Pinned

Connection

10

Origin

Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads - Static Gravity Load Analysis 1-1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Two-dimensional frame analysis

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 2013 results in Table 1-1.

Load Case I

(Concentrated Load)

Quantity Location ETABS Theoretical

Bending Moments End I 0.00 0.00

Point 1,687.50 1,687.50

point 3,375.00 3,375.00

point -337.50 -337.50

End J -4,050.00 -4,050.00

Shear Forces End I -31.25 -31.25

Point -31.25 -31.25

point 68.75 68.75

point 68.75 68.75

End J 68.75 68.75

Load Case II

(Uniformly Distributed Load)

Quantity Location ETABS Theoretical

Bending Moments End I 0.00 0.00

Point 2,430.00 2,430.00

point 2,430.00 2,430.00

point 0.00 0.00

Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads - Static Gravity Load Analysis 1-2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Load Case II

(Uniformly Distributed Load)

Quantity Location ETABS Theoretical

End J -4,860.00 -4,860.00

Shear Forces End I -67.50 -67.50

Point -22.50 -22.50

point 22.50 22.50

point 67.50 67.50

End J 112.50 112.50

Computer File

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

2013 installation.

Conclusion

The comparison of results shows an exact match between the ETABS 2013 results and the

theoretical data.

Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads - Static Gravity Load Analysis 1-3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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:

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 2013 option of neglecting shear de-

formations. These deformations are neglected to be consistent with the hand-calculated model

with which the results are compared.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Results Comparison

The three theoretical natural periods and mass normalized mode shapes are compared in Ta-

ble 2-1 with ETABS 2013 results.

nd

1 0.4414 2 Level 0.934 0.934

st

1 Level 0.519 0.519

Roof Level 0.934 0.934

nd

2 0.1575 2 Level -0.519 -0.519

st

1 Level -1.165 -1.165

3 0.1090 Roof Level 0.519 0.519

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

nd

2 Level -1.165 -1.165

st

1 Level 0.934 0.934

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

ETABS 2013 results. The results are identical.

Quantity ETABS Theoretical

Displacement at

Roof 2.139 2.139

nd

2 1.716 1.716

st

1 0.955 0.955

Moment, Column C1, at Base 11,730 11,730

Computer Files

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

These files are provided as part of the ETABS 2013 installation.

Conclusion

The result comparison shows an exact match between the ETABS 2013 results and the theo-

retical data.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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)

IBC 2000 specified seismic loads (International Code Council, Inc. 2000)

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

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

All beams are infinitely rigid and 24" deep

Modulus of elasticity = 29500 ksi

Poisson's ratio = 0.3

Typical story mass = 0.4 kip-sec2/in

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

follows:

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 IBC2000 seismic load analysis, the code parameters associated with the analysis are

as follows:

IBC Response Accel, Ss =1

IBC Response Accel, S1 = 0.4

IBC Response Modification, R =8

IBC Coefficient Ct = 0.035

IBC Seismic Group =I

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

sis are as follows:

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

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Results Comparison

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

lae given in the applicable references. For the seismic loads, the fundamental period comput-

ed by ETABS 2013 can be used in the formulae. From ETABS results, this fundamental peri-

od 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 2013

program in Table 3-1 for UBC seismic loads, Table 3-2 for IBC seismic loads and Table 3-3

for UBC wind loads.

Level ETABS (kips) Theoretical (kips)

Roof 34.09 34.09

nd

2 56.82 56.82

st

1 68.19 68.19

Level ETABS (kips) Theoretical (kips)

Roof 19.38 19.38

nd

2 32.25 32.25

st

1 38.64 38.64

Level ETABS (kips) Theoretical (kips)

Roof 3.30 3.30

nd

2 9.49 9.49

st

1 15.21 15.21

Computer File

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

2013 installation.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Conclusion

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

data.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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.

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

the depth of the beams) and neglecting both shear deformations and column axial defor-

mations, the structural stiffness matrix can be assembled (Przemieniecki 1968).

The frame geometry is shown in Figure 4-1.

The structure is modeled as a single frame with four column lines and four bays. Kip-inch-

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

All beams infinitely rigid and 36" deep

Story weight = 150 psf

Three-dimensional frame analysis

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 2013 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

Y-translation 1.6918 1.6918

Z-rotation 0.000 0.000

3 Period,sec. 0.0702 0.070

Mode Shape

X-translation 0.4728 0.4728

Y-translation 0.000 0.000

Z-rotation 0.0111 0.0111

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Computer File

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

2013 installation.

Conclusion

The results comparison shows an exact match between the ETABS 2013 results and the theo-

retical data.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Results Comparison

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

comparison of ETABS 2013 results for natural periods and key member forces for one

frame with these references is given in Table 5-1.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

D2 D4

D1 D3

D2 D4

D1 D3

D2 D4

D1 D3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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 EX5.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS 2013 installation.

Conclusions

The results comparison reflects acceptable agreement between the ETABS 2013 results and

reference data.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Eigenvalue analysis

Results Comparison

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

(1972). There are two differences between the ETABS 2013 analysis and the analyses of the

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

dom to each joint in the structure. However, the ETABS 2013 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 2013 are compared in Table 6-1 with results from

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

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 EX6.EDB. This file is provided as part of the

ETABS 2013 installation.

Conclusions

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

ETABS and the references is acceptable.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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.

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Vertical Loading,

typical for all

levels

All columns are W14s

All beams are W24s

Member weights are indicated

Typical story mass = 0.49 kip-sec 2/in

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Two-dimensional frame 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

Wilson and

Mode ETABS Habibullah DYNAMIC/EASE2

1 1.27321 1.27321 1.27321

2 0.43128 0.43128 0.43128

3 0.24204 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 0.07951 0.07951 0.07951

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Wilson and

ETABS Habibullah DYNAMIC/EASE2

CQC CQC SRSS

Quantity Combination Combination Combination

Lateral Displacement 5.4314 5.4314 5.4378

at Roof

Column C1 at ground

Column C1 at ground

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

obtained for the first eight seconds of the excitation. This is consistent with DYNAM-

IC/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.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 2013 results are compared (see Table 8-1), no story mass moments of inertia are

assigned in the ETABS model.

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

B5 B6

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Three-dimensional frame analysis

Comparison of Results

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

comparison of the key ETABS 2013 results with Wilson and Habibullah (Reference 1) and

Peterson (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

nd 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201

Center of mass, 2 Story

Computer File

The input data file is EX8.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS 2013 installa-

tion.

Conclusion

The results comparison shows acceptable agreement between ETABS 2013 and the refer-

ences.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Three-dimensional frame analysis

Results Comparison

The structure is also analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992). Key ETABS 2013 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

nd

Center of Mass at 2 Story for:

Seismic at 30 to X 0.1062 0.1062

Seismic at 120 to X 0.0617 0.0617

Computer File

The input data file is EX9.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS 2013 installa-

tion.

Conclusions

The results comparison shows exact agreement between ETABS 2013 and the reference

material.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

1 2

D1 D2

D1 D2

D1 D2

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Panel zones

Point assignments

Nonlinear time history analysis

Ritz vectors

Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis 10 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Level ETABS DRAIN-2DX ETABS DRAIN-2DX

Comparison of Maximum Story Deflections

rd

3 4.57 4.57 2.10 1.92

nd

2 3.48 3.51 1.68 1.55

st

1 1.82 1.82 0.92 0.86

Comparison of Maximum Link Shear Force

rd

3 7.29 7.31 17.75 17.40

nd

2 13.97 13.92 36.70 36.20

st

1 17.98 18.00 47.79 47.10

Comparison of Maximum Brace Axial Force

rd

3 5.16 5.17 12.55 12.30

nd

2 9.88 9.84 25.95 25.60

st

1 12.71 12.70 33.79 33.28

Computer Files

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

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

2013 installation.

Conclusions

The results comparison show acceptable to exact agreement between ETABS 2013 and

DRAIN-2DX.

Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis 10 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 = CV.

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

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

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

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

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

elements (dampers) undergoing shear deformation.

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Point assignments

Ritz vectors

Results Comparison

Sample results for = 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.

Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis 11 - 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Level ETABS DRAIN-2DX ETABS DRAIN-2DX

rd

3 4.09 4.11 2.26 2.24

nd

2 3.13 3.14 1.75 1.71

st

1 1.63 1.63 0.89 0.87

Comparison of Maximum Link Shear Force

rd

3 6.16 5.98 14.75 14.75

nd

2 10.79 10.80 32.82 32.84

st

1 15.15 15.02 44.90 44.97

Comparison of Maximum Brace Axial Force

rd

3 4.36 4.23 10.43 10.43

nd

2 7.63 7.63 23.21 23.22

st

1 10.71 10.62 31.75 31.80

Computer File

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

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

the ETABS 2013 installation.

Conclusions

The comparison of results shows acceptable agreement between ETABS 2013 and DRAIN-

2DX.

Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis 11 - 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 2013 GAP elements. The structure experiences pounding because of ground mo-

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

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

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

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

bays. Kip-inch-second units are used. The modulus of elasticity is taken as 29500 ksi. 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.

Two-dimensional frame analysis

Point assignments

Results Comparison

The example frame analyzed using ETABS 2013 is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Com-

puters and Structures 2002) for time history loads (SAP2000 has been verified inde-

pendently). A comparison of key ETABS 2013 results with SAP2000 is presented in Table

12-1.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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.

and Link Force at Story 4

Computer Files

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

the files are provided as part of the ETABS 2013 installation.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Conclusions

The results comparison shows essentially exact agreement between ETABS 2013 and

SAP2000.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 2013 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.

Three-dimensional frame analysis

Point assignments

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Results Comparison

The example frame analyzed using ETABS 2013 is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Com-

puters and Structures 2002) for time history loads (SAP2000 has been verified inde-

pendently). A comparison of key ETABS 2013 results with SAP200 is presented in Table

13-1.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

nd

Maximum Uy Displacement, Column C9 at 2 Floor 3.4735 3.4736

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.

Computer Files

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

LP-TH90. All of these files are provided as part of the ETABS 2013 installation.

Conclusion

The results comparison shows essentially exact agreement between ETABS 2013 and

SAP2000.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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 2013 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.

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.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Three-dimensional frame analysis

Point assignments

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Results Comparison

The example frame analyzed using ETABS 2013 is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Comput-

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

comparison of key ETABS results with SAP2000 is presented in Table 14-1.

Table 14-1 Comparison of Result for Time History Analysis

Quantity ETABS SAP2000

nd

Maximum Uy Displacement, Column C9 at 2 Floor 4.2077 4.2069

Maximum Axial Force, Column C1 at base 38.25 38.25

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

the displacement of the second story at column line 1.

Computer Files

The input data file for this example is EX14.EDB. The time history files are LP-TH0 and

LP-TH90. All of the files are provided as part of the ETABS 2013 installation.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Conclusion

The results comparison shows acceptable agreement between ETABS 2013 and SAP2000.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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 2013 shell object with wall section assignments. All walls are subjected to a static

lateral load applied at the top of the wall.

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.

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.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Use of area objects

Results Comparison

All walls analyzed in this example using ETABS 2013 were also analyzed using the gen-

eral structural analysis program SAP2000 (Computers and Structure 2002), using refined

meshes of the membrane/shell element of that program. The SAP2000 meshes used are

shown in Figures 15-7, 15-8, 15-9, 15-10, 15-11 and 15-12. For the SAP2000 analysis, the

rigid diaphragms at the floor levels were modeled by constraining all wall nodes at the floor

to have the same lateral displacement for planar walls, or by adding rigid members in the

plane of the floor for three-dimensional walls.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The lateral displacements from the ETABS 2013 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 2.3926 2.4287

360 0.0985 0.1031

720 0.0172 0.0186

3 360 120 0.3068 0.3205

360 0.0169 0.0187

720 0.0046 0.0052

1 120 120 0.0144 0.0185

360 0.0024 0.0029

720 0.0011 0.0013

Location ETABS SAP2000

Story 3 0.0690 0.0671

Story 2 0.0524 0.0530

Story 1 0.0390 0.0412

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Example 15c (1-4)

Number of Sto-

ries Beam Length (inches) ETABS SAP2000

60 0.0841 0.0869

6

240 0.1443 0.1505

60 0.0186 0.0200

3

240 0.0311 0.0332

Application Point, Example 15d (1-2)

Number of Load Displacement

Stories Direction Direction ETABS SAP2000

X X 0.8621 0.8936

6 X Z-Rotation 0.0185 0.0191

Y Y 1.1427 1.1882

X X 0.1242 0.1337

3 X Z-Rotation 0.0024 0.0025

Y Y 0.1614 0.1733

Example 15e(1-2)

Number of Stories ETABS SAP2000

6 0.2798 0.2899

3 0.0451 0.0480

Example 15f (1-2)

Number of Load Displacement

Stories Direction Direction ETABS SAP2000

X X 0.3695 0.3655

6 X Z-Rotation 0.0042 0.0039

Y Y 0.7286 0.7490

X X 0.0596 0.0628

3 X Z-Rotation 0.0005 0.0005

Y Y 0.0989 0.1058

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Computer Files

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

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

installation.

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

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

EX15D2.EDB.

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

EX15E2.EDB.

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

EX15F2.EDB.

Conclusion

The results comparison show acceptable agreement between ETBAS 2013 and SAP2000.

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

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.

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

Software Verification

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

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

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 2 t f 18 2 0.57 16.86 in

h0 d t f 18 0.57 17.43 in

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

I yC w 40.1 3045.644

rts 1.98 in

S 33 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

2

wu L

Mu = 1.74 352/8 = 266.4375 k-ft

8

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

bf 7 . 50

6 . 579

2t f 2 0 . 57

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

E 29000

p 0 . 38 0 . 38 9 . 152

Fy 50

Flange is Compact.

h 16.86

47.49

tw 0.355

E 29000

p 3 . 76 3 . 76 90 . 553

Fy 50

Web is Compact.

Section is Compact.

M p

F y Z 33 50 101 5050 k in

Critical Lengths:

E 29000

L p 1.76 ry 1.76 1.652 70.022 in 5.835 ft

Fy 50

2

E Jc 0.7 F y S 33 ho

L r 1.95 rts 1 1 6.76

0.7 F y S 33 ho E Jc

2

29000 1.240 1.0 0.7 50 88.9 17.43

L r 1.95 1.98 1 1 6.76

0.7 50 88.9 17.43 29000 1.240 1.0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

L r 16.966 ft

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

calculated using the following equation:

12 . 5 M

Cb max

R m 3 .0 Eqn. 1

2 .5 M max

3M A

4M B

3M C

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 Lb

M A

M C 1

4 L

M m ax M B 1.00

2 2

1L 1 5

M A

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

C b 1.002

Mn M p

5050 k in

b M n 0.9 5050 / 12

b M n 378.75 k ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

M m ax M B 1.00

2 2

1L 1 11.667

M A

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

C b 1.014

Lb L p

M C b M M 0 . 7 F y S 33 M

n p p

L L p

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 m ax M B 1.00

2 2

1L 1 35

M A

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

C b 1.136

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

2

C b E Lb

2

Jc

F cr 1 0 . 078

S 33 h o rts

2

Lb

r

ts

2

1.136 29000 1.24 1

2

420

Fcr 1 0.078 14.133 ksi

88.889 17.4 1.983

2

420

1.983

M n

F cr S 33 M p

b M n 0.9 1256.245 / 12

b M n 94.218 k ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

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

Ignoring fillet welds:

3 3

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

Iy 85.35 in

3

12 12

Iy 85.4

ry 2.08 in.

A 19.8

Ix Ad I

2

x

3 3

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

I x 2(8.0)(8.0) 1095.65 in

2 4

12 12

t t2 11

d ' d 1 17 16 in

2 2

2 2

Iy d ' (85.35)(16.0)

Cw 5462.583 in

4

4 4

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

3 3 3

bt

J 5.41 in

4

3 3

Member:

K = 1.0 for a pinned-pinned condition

L = 15 ft

Loadings:

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Section Compactness:

Check for slender elements using Specification Section E7

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

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

E 29000

2 2

Fe = 38.18 ksi

KL

2

86 . 6 2

r

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

here to illustrate the calculation.

2 EC w 1

Fe GJ

K z L Ix Iy

2

2 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

Q Fy 1.0 50 ry

So

Q Fy

1.0 50

f Fcr Q 0.658 e F y 1.0 0.658 38.2 50 28.9 ksi

F

E 0.34 E

be 1.92 t 1 b , w here b h

f b t f

be 1.92 0.250 1 15.0 in

28.9 15.0 0.250 28.9

be 12.5 in 15.0 in

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Aeff be t w 2 b 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 Q a 1.00 0.968 0.968

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

E 29000 KLy

4.71 4.71 115.4 86.6

Q Fy 0.966 50 ry

E KL

When 4.71

Q Fy r

Q Fy

1.0 50

Q 0.658 e F y 0.966 0.658 38.18 50 28.47 ksi

F

Fcr

c 0.90

c Pn Fcr A g 0.90 562.3 506.1 kips > 420 kips

c Pn 506.1 kips

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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.

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 360-10).

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 2 t f 18 2 0.57 16.86 in

h0 d t f 18 0.57 17.43 in

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

I yC w 40.1 3045.644

rts 1.98 in

S 33 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

2

wu L

Mu = 1.74 352/8 = 266.4375 k-ft

8

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

bf 7 . 50

6 . 579

2t f 2 0 . 57

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

E 29000

p 0 . 38 0 . 38 9 . 152

Fy 50

Flange is Compact.

h 16.86

47.49

tw 0.355

E 29000

p 3 . 76 3 . 76 90 . 553

Fy 50

Web is Compact.

Section is Compact.

M p

F y Z 33 50 101 5050 k-in

Critical Lengths:

E 29000

L p 1.76 ry 1.76 1.652 70.022 in 5.835 ft

Fy 50

2

E Jc 0.7 F y S 33 ho

L r 1.95 rts 1 1 6.76

0.7 F y S 33 ho E Jc

2

29000 1.240 1.0 0.7 50 88.9 17.43

L r 1.95 1.98 1 1 6.76

0.7 50 88.9 17.43 29000 1.240 1.0

L r 16.966 ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

factor is calculated using the following equation:

12 . 5 M

Cb max

R m 3 .0 Eqn. 1

2 .5 M max

3M A

4M B

3M C

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 Lb

M A

M C 1

4 L

M m ax M B 1.00

2 2

1L 1 5

M A

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

C b 1.002

Mn M p

5050 k-in

b M n 0.9 5050 / 12

b M n 378.75 k-ft

M m ax M B 1.00

2 2

1L 1 11.667

M A

MC 1 b 1 0.972

4 L 4 35

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

12.5 1.00

Cb

2.5 1.00 3 0.972 4 1.00 3 0.972

C b 1.014

Lb L p

M C b M M 0 . 7 F y S 33 M

n p p

L L p

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 m ax M B 1.00

2 2

1L 1 35

M A

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

C b 1.136

2

C b E Lb

2

Jc

F cr 1 0 . 078

S 33 h o rts

2

Lb

r

ts

2

1.136 29000 1.24 1

2

420

Fcr 1 0.078 14.133 ksi

88.889 17.4 1.983

2

420

1.983

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

M n

F cr S 33 M p

b M n 0.9 1256.245 / 12

b M n 94.218 k-ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 360-10).

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

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

3 3

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

Iy 85.35 in

3

12 12

Iy 85 . 4

ry 2 . 08 in .

A 19 . 8

Ix Ad I

2

x

3 3

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

I x 2(8.0)(8.0) 1095.65 in

2 4

12 12

t1 t 2 11

d ' d 17 16 in

2 2

2 2

Iy d ' (85.35)(16.0)

Cw 5462.583 in

4

4 4

2 ( 8 . 0 )(1 . 0 ) (15 . 0 )( 0 . 250 )

3 3 3

bt

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

Section Compactness:

Check for slender elements using Specification Section E7

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

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

E 29000

2 2

Fe = 38.18 ksi

86.6

2 2

KL

r

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

here to illustrate the calculation.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2 EC 1

Fe w

G J

K z L I x I y

2

2 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

Q Fy 1.0 50 ry

So

Q Fy

1.0 50

f Fcr Q 0.658 e F y 1.0 0.658 38.2 50 28.9 ksi

F

E 0.34 E

be 1.92 t 1 b , w here b h

f b t f

be 1.92 0.250 1 15.0 in

28.9 15.0 0.250 28.9

be 12.5 in 15.0 in

Aeff be t w 2 b f t f 12.5 0.250 2 8.0 1.0 19.1 in

2

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Aeff 19.1

Qa 0.968

A 19.75

Q Q s Q a 1.00 0.968 0.968

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

E 29000 KLy

4.71 4.71 115.4 86.6

Q Fy 0.966 50 ry

E KL

When 4.71

Q Fy r

Q Fy

1.0 50

Q 0.658 e F y 0.966 0.658 38.18 50 28.47 ksi

F

Fcr

c 0.90

c Pn Fcr A g 0.90 562.3 506.1 kips > 420 kips

c Pn 506.1 kips

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

Fy = 50 ksi

Section compactness check (bending)

Member bending capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

(ksi)

Fb (ksi)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

Section: W8x10

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

h h 2 t f 7.89 2 0.205 7.48 in

Member:

L = 12.65 ft

lb = 3 ft

Loadings:

w = 1.0 k/ft

2

wL

M = 1.0 12.652/8 = 20.0 k-ft

8

Design Bending Stress

f b M / S 33 20 12 / 7.8074

f b 30.74 ksi

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

bf 3.94

9.610

2t f 2 0.205

65 65

p 9.192

Fy 50

95 95

r 13 . 435

Fy 50

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

r ,

Flange is Non-Compact.

d 7.89

46.412

tw 0.17

P fa

No axial force is present, so f a 0 and 0 0.16, so

A Fy

640 fa 640 0

p 1 3.74 1 3.74 90.510

F y F y 50 50

Web is Compact.

Section is Non-Compact.

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Critical Length, lc:

76 b 20 , 000 A f

f

l c min ,

F y dF y

l c m in ,

50 7.89 50

l c m in 42.347, 40.948

l c 40.948 in

l 22 lb 3 12 36 in

Fb 33 32.70 ksi

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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.

Section compactness check (compression)

Member compression capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

Allowable Axial Stress, 16.47 16.47 0.00%

Fa (ksi)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

fa

A 35.3

f a 15.86 ksi

Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

bf 12.32

5.575

2t f 2 1.105

65 65

p 10.83

Fy 36

Flange is Compact.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

fa 15.86

0.44

Fy 36

d 13.12

18.48

tw 0.71

fa

Since 0.44 0.16

Fy

257 257

p 42.83

Fy 36

Web is Compact.

Section is Compact.

KL x 2 . 13 15 12

69 . 638

rx 5 . 5056

2 E 2 29000

2 2

Cc 126.099

Fy 36

KL x

rx 69 . 638

0 . 552

Cc 126 . 099

KL x

Cc

rx

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

1 KL x r x

2

1 . 0

Fy

2 Cc

Fa 3

5 3 KL x r x 1 KL x r x

8 C

3 8 Cc c

1 2

1 . 0 0 . 552 36

2

Fa

5 3 1

0 . 552 0 . 552

3

3 8 8

Fa 16.47 ksi

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

11.667 ft and 35 ft.

W18X40 wu = 1.6 klf Span, L = 35 ft

E = 29000 ksi

Fy = 50 ksi

Section compactness check (bending)

Member bending capacity

Unsupported length factors

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel

E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi

Fr = 10 ksi (for rolled shapes)

F L F y Fr 50 10 40 ksi

Section: W18x40

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

hc d 2 t f 17.9 2 0.525 16.85 in

A = 11.8 in2

S33 = 68.3799 in3, Z33 = 78.4 in3

Iy = 19.1 in4, ry = 1.2723 in

Cw = 1441.528 in6, J = 0.81 in4

Other:

L = 35 ft

b = 0.9

Loadings:

wu = 1.6 k/ft

2

wu L

Mu = 1.6 352/8 = 245.0 k-ft

8

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

bf 6.02

5.733

2t f 2 0.525

65 65

p 9.192

Fy 50

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Flange is Compact.

hc 16.85

53.492

tw 0.315

640 640

p 90.510

Fy 50

Web is Compact.

Section is Compact.

M p

F y Z 33 50 78.4 3920 k-in

Critical Lengths:

E G JA 29000 11153.85 0.81 11.8

X1 1806 ksi

S 33 2 68.3799 2

2 2

C S 1441.528 68.3799

X 2 4 w 33 4 0.0173 in

4

I 22 G J 19.1 11153.85 0.81

Lp 53.979 in 4.498 ft

Fy 50

X1

L r r2 2 1 1 X 2 FL

2

FL

1.27 1810

Lr 1 1 0.0172 40 144.8 in 12.069 ft

2

40

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

factor is calculated using the following equation:

12 . 5 M

Cb max

R m 3 .0 Eqn. 1

2 .5 M max

3M A

4M B

3M C

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 Lb

M A

M C 1

4 L

M m ax M B 1.00

2 2

1L 1 4.375

M A

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

C b 1.002

Mn M p

F y Z 33 50 78.4 3920 1.5 S 33 F y 1.5 68.3799 50 5128.493 k-in

b M n 0.9 3920 / 12

b M n 294.0 k-ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

M m ax M B 1.00

2 2

1L 1 11.667

M A

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

C b 1.014

Lb L p

M n Cb M M F L S 33 M

p p

L L p

r p

11.667 4.486

M n 1.01 3920 3920 40 68.4 2836.042 k-in

12.06 4.486

b M n 0.9 2836.042 / 12

b M n 212.7031 k-ft

M m ax M B 1.00

2 2

1L 1 35

M A

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

C b 1.136

M n

F cr S 33 M p

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2

Cb E

M cr E I 22 G J I 22 C W

Lb Lb

2

1.136 29000

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

b M n 0.9 674.655 / 12

b M n 50.599 k-ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

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 u x , M u y = 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 3 rd 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

Section compactness check (compression)

Member compression capacity

Member bending capacity

Demand/capacity ratio, D/C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with the results from

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

6-8.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: ASTM A992 Grade 50 Steel

Fy = 50 ksi, E = 29,000 ksi

Section: W14x176

A = 51.8 in2,

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

hc d 2 t f 15.2 2 1.31 12.58 in

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

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

Member:

Kx = Ky = 1.0

L = Lb = 14 ft

Other

c 0.85

b 0.9

Loadings:

Pu = 1400 kips

Mux = 200 k-ft

Muy = 70 k-ft

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

b f

/ 2 15.7 / 2

5.99

tf 1.31

65 65

p 9.19

Fy 50

p, No localized flange buckling

Flange is Compact.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

hc 12.58

15.16

tw 0.83

b Py b A g F y 0.9 51.8 50 2331 kips

Pu 1400

0.601

b Py 2331

Pu

Since 0.601 0.125

b Py

191 Pu 253

p 2.33

F y b Py

Fy

191 253

p 2.33 0.601 46.714 35.780

50 50

p,

No localized web buckling

Web is Compact.

Section is Compact.

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

c Pn 1940 kips

Or by hand,

K yL Fy 1.0 14 12 50

c 0.552

ry E 4.022 29000

Since c 1.5,

c

50 0.658

2 2

0.552

c Pn 1937.84 kips

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

Pu 1400

0 .7 2 2 0 .2

c Pn 1 9 3 7 .8 4

50 310

M px

Fy Z x 1333.333 k-ft

12

M py

Fy Z y

Zy 163

However, 1.527 1.5,

Sy 106.7516

So

Z y 1.5 S y 1.5 106.7516 160.1274 in

3

50 160.1274

M py

667.198 k-ft

12

E

L p 1 . 76 r y

F yf

29000

L p 1.76 4.02 1 14.2 ft L b 14 ft

50 12

b M nx b M px

b M nx 0.9 1333.333

b M nx 1200 k-ft

b M ny b M py

b M ny 0.9 667.198

b M ny 600.478 k-ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

M ux

B1 x M ntx

, where M ntx 200 kip-ft; and

M uy B 1 y M nty

, where M nty

70 kip-ft

Cm

B1 1

P

1 u

Pe 1

M1

1 .0

M 2

M

C m 0 . 6 0 . 4 1

M2

C m 0 . 6 0 . 4 1 . 0 0 . 2

EI

2

p e1

KL

2

29000 2140

2

14.0 12

2

29000 838

2

p e1 y 8, 498

14.0 12

2

C mx

B1 x 1

P

1 u

Pe 1 x

0.2

B1 x 0.214 1

1400

1

21702

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

B1 x 1

C my

B1 y 1

P

1 u

Pe1 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

1400 8 200 70

0.974 1.0 , OK

1940 9 1200 600.478

D

0.974

C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in 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

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

v = 0.3 Section: 350WC197

G = 76923.08 MPa

Section compactness check (compression)

Section compression capacity

Member compression capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

Section Axial Capacity,

6275 6275 0.00%

Ns (kN)

4385 4385 0.00%

Member Axial Capacity,

Nc (kN)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

(b f t w ) fy 350 20 250

e 5.89

2tf 250 2 28 250

ep 9, ey 16, ew 90

Flange is compact

h fy 331 250

e 16.55

tw 250 20 250

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

ep 30, ey 45, ew 180

Web is compact.

Section is Compact.

Section is not Slender, so Kf = 1.0

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

3

N s 6275kN

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

r2 2 89.264 r3 3 139.15

l e 22 K f fy 6000 1 250

n 22 67.216

r22 250 89.264 250

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

a 22 2 0 .3 6 3

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

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2 2

22 77.398

1 22 1 0.2083

90 90

22 2

2

1.317

77.398

2 22 2

90 90

90

2

1 1

c 22 22

2 2 2 2

2

90

c 22 1.317 1 1 0.6988

1.317 77.398

N c 22 c 22 N s N s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object bending strengths are tested in this example.

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

v = 0.3 Section: 350WC197

G = 76923.08 MPa

Section compactness check (bending)

Section bending capacity

Member bending capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

Section Bending Capacity,

837.5 837.5 0.00%

Ms,major (kN-m)

837.5 837.5 0.00%

Member Bending Capacity,

Mb (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

fy = 250 MPa

Section: 350WC197

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

I22 = 200,000,000 mm4

Z33 = 2,936,555.891 mm2

S33 = 3,350,000 mm2

J = 5,750,000 mm4

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

Member:

le22 = 6000 mm (unbraced length)

Considered to be a braced frame

Loadings:

M m * 1000 kN -m

M 2 * 250 kN -m

M 3 * 500 kN -m

M 4 * 750 kN -m

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

(b f t w ) fy 350 20 250

e 5.89

2tf 250 2 28 250

ep 9, ey 16, ew 90

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Flange is compact

h fy 331 250

e 16.55

tw 250 20 250

ep 82, ey 115, ew 180

Web is compact.

Section is Compact.

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

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

2

2

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

kt = 1 (Program default)

kr = 1 (Program default)

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2 EI EIw

2

M oa M o 2

22

G J 2

le le

2 2 10 5 2 10 8 2 10 4.59 10

2 5 12

M oa M o 2 76, 923.08 5, 750, 000 2

8, 400 8, 400

M oa M o 1786.938 kN -m

M 2

837.5 2

s 0.6 0.6

Ms 837.5

s

3 3

M oa M oa 1786.938 1786.938

s 0.7954

1.7 M m *

m 2.5

M 2 * M 3 * M 4 *

2 2 2

1.7 1000

m 1.817 2.5

250 500 750

2 2 2

M b 1210.64 kN -m 837.5 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

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

example.

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

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

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

available through the program Help menu.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

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

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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)

Considered to be a braced frame

=0.9

Loadings:

N * 200 kN

M m * 1000 kN m

Section Compactness:

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

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

Section Compression Capacity:

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

Member Compression Capacity:

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

Section Bending Capacity:

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

N* 200

M r 33 1.18 M s 33 1 1.18 837.5 1 M s 33 837.5

N s 0.9 6275

M r 33 953.252 837.5

M r 33 837.5kN -m

Strong-axis buckling strength needs to be calculated:

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

le 3 3 6000

43.119

r3 3 139.15

l e 33 K f fy 6000 1 250

n 33 43.119

r33 250 139.15 250

2100( n 3 3 13.5)

a 33 19.141

n 3 3 15.3 n 3 3 2050

2

2 2

33 52.690

1 33 1 0.1278

90 90

33 2

2

2.145

52.690

2 33 2

90 90

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

90

2

c 33 33 1 1

33 33

2

90

c 33 2.145 1 1 0.8474

2.145 50.690

N c 33 c 33 N s N s

N c 33 0.8474 6275

N c 33 5318 kN

M m in 0

m 0

M m ax 1000

1 m

3

N* 1 m

3

N*

M i M s 33 1 1 1.18 1

2 N c 33 2 N c 33

1 0

3

200 1 0

3

200

M i 837.5 1 1 1.18 1

2 0.9 5318 2 0.9 5318

M i 823.11 kN -m

1

bc

1 1 m

3

N *

m

0 .4 0 .2 3

2 2 N c 2 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

1

bc

1 0 1 0 3

200

0.4 0.23

2 2 0.9 4385

bc 4.120

EIw

2

2 10 4.59 10

2 6 12

2

lz 6000

2

N oz G J 76923.08 5.75 10

6

I 33 I 22 4.86 2 10 8

Ag 25100

N oz 4.423 10

11

kN

M b 33 o 1.0 0.7954 837.5 666.145 kN -m

N * N*

M o 33 bc M b 33 o 1 1 M r 33

N c 22

N 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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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 compactness check (bending)

Section bending capacity

Section shear capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

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%

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

E = 205000 MPa

Ys = 275 MPa

y 1.0 Y s 275 M P a

Section: UB533x210x92

Ag = 11,700 mm2

D = 533.1 mm, b = 104.65 mm

t = 10.1 mm, T = 15.6 mm

d D 2 t 533.1 2 10.1 501.9 mm

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

69 6.5 136 6.5

2 2

wu l Pu l

Mu

8 4 8 4

M u 585.4 kN -m

w u l Pu 69 6.5 136

Fv

2 2

Fv 292.25 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Section Compactness:

P

r1 0 (since there is no axial force)

dt y

P

r2 0 (since there is no axial force)

Ag y

275 275

1

y 275

b 104.65

6.71

T 15.6

ep 9 9

Flange is Class 1.

d 501.9

49.69

t 10.1

Since r1 = r2 = 0 and there is no axial compression:

p 80 80

Web is Class 1.

Section is Class 1.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Av 2 D t 533.1 10.1 5, 384.31 m m

2

Pv 2 888.4 kN

With Shear Reduction:

0.6 Pv 2 533 kN Fv 292.3 kN

M c y S 33 1.2 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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

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

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

TECHNICAL FEATURES TESTED

Section compactness check (compression & bending)

Member compression capacity

Section bending capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

Axial Capacity,

773.2 773.2 0.00%

Nc (kN)

Bending Capacity, 68.3 68.3 0.00%

Mc (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

E = 205000 MPa

G = 78846.15 MPa

Ys = 355 MPa

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

Section Compactness:

P 640

=r1 = = 0.002183

dt y 131 6.3 355

275 275

= = = 0.880

y 355

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

b 131.1

= = = 20.81

T 6.3

d 131.1

p= 28 < 80 = 28 0.880 < 80 0.880

t 6.3

=

p 24.6 < 49.6

= 20.81 <=

p 24.6 , No localized flange buckling

Flange is Compact.

d 131.1

= = = 20.81 :

t 6.3

64 64 0.88

=

p < 40

= < 40 0.88

= 56.3 > 35.2

1 + 0.6r1 1 + 0.6 0.002183

So p =35.2

= 20.81 <=

p 35.2 , No localized web buckling

Web is compact.

Section is Compact.

l K l 1.0 5000

22 = 33 =e 33 = 33 33 = =85.546

r33 r33 58.4483

= max { 22 , =

33 } 85.546

2 E 2 205000

= o 0.2= 0.2 = 15.1

y 355

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

code documentation)

=

Perry Factor: 0.001a ( =

0 ) 0.001 2 ( 85.546 15.1

= ) 0.141

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2 E 2 205000

Euler Strength: = = = 276.5 MPa

2

E

85.5462

y + ( + 1) E 355 + ( 0.141 + 1) 276.5

= = = 355.215 MPa

2 2

E y 276.5 355

=c = = 215.967 MPa

+ 2 E y 335.215 + 335.2152 276.5 355

= g c

N c A= 3580 215.967

N c = 773.2 kN

y = 1.0 Ys = 275 MPa

D 150

Av =

Ag =3580 =1790 mm 2

D + B 150 + 150

Pv = 0.6 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 =

y S33 1.2 y Z 33 =

355 192,301.5 1.2 355 163, 066.7

M c = 68.3kN-m

Not considered since the section is square.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

DL = 7 kN/m and LL = 15 kN/m. This example was tested using the CSA 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

TECHNICAL FEATURES TESTED

Section compactness check (bending)

Member bending capacity, Mr (fully restrained)

Member bending capacity, Mr (buckling)

Member bending capacity, Mr (LTB)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 2 t f 404 2 11.2 381.6 m m

Ag = 5890 mm2

I22 = 5,140,000 mm4

Z33 = 885,000 mm3

J = 192,000 mm4

C w 1.976 10 m m

11 6

Section: W410x60

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

h d 2 t f 408 2 12.8 382.4 m m

Ag = 7580 mm2

I22 = 12,000,000 mm4

Z33= 1,190,000 mm3

J = 328,000 mm4

C w 4.698 10 m m

11 6

Member:

L=8m

= 0.9

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Loadings:

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

2

31.25 8

2

wf L

M f

8 8

M f

250 kN -m

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

145 145

C l .1 7.75

Fy 350

W410x46

bf 140

6.25

2t f 2 11.2

Flange is Class 1.

W410x60

bf 178

6.95

2t f 2 12.8

Flange is Class 1.

1100 C f 1100 0

C l .1 1 0.39 1 0.39 58.8

Fy Cy 350 5890 350

W410x46

h 381.6

54.51

tw 7

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Web is Class 1.

Section is Class 1

W410x60

h 382.4

49.66

tw 7.7

Web is Class 1.

Section is Class 1

Calculation of 2:

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

calculated as:

4 M m ax

2

M m ax 4 M a 7 M b 4 M c

2 2 2 2

Ma = moment at unrestrained span

Mb = moment at unrestrained span

Mc = moment at unrestrained span

F y Z 33 350 885 , 000 / 10 309 . 75 kN-m

6

M p

M p

0.9 309.75 278.775 kN-m

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2

2 E

Mu E I 22 G J I 22 C w as L 0

L L

M p 33

M r 33 1.15 M p 33 1 0.28 M p 33

Mu

M

0 as M u

p 33

0.28

Mu

leading to M r 33 1.15 M p 33

M p 33

So

M r 33 M p 33

278.775 kN -m

L Lb Lb 82 2

M a @ xa 3.5 m

2 4 2 4

f L xa f xa

2

31.25 8 3.5 31.25 3.5

2

Ma 246.094 kN -m

2 2 2 2

Mmax = Mb = 250 kN-m @ 4000 mm

4 250

2 1.008

250 4 246.094 7 250 4 246.094

2 2 2 2

2 = 1.008

2

2 E

Mu E I 22 G J I 22 C w

L L

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

5 6 3

1.008

2

Mu 2 10 5

2000

2000

5.14 10 197.6 10

6 9

M u 537.82 10

6

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 1.15 M p 33 1 0.28 M p 33

Mu

309.75

M r 3 3 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

F y Z 33 350 1190 , 000 / 10 416 . 5 kN-m

6

M p

M p

0.9 416.5 374.85 kN-m

L Lb Lb 84 4

M a @ xa 3m

2 4 2 4

f L xa f xa

2

31.25 8 3 31.25 3

2

Ma 234.375 kN -m

2 2 2 2

Mmax = Mb = 250 kN-m @ 4000 mm

4 250

2 1.032

250 4 234.375 7 250 4 234.375

2 2 2 2

2 = 1.032

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2

2 E

Mu E I 22 G J I 22 C w

Ly L

2 10 12 10 76923 328 10

5 6 3

1.032

2

Mu 2 10 5

4000

4000

12 10 469.8 10

6 9

M u 362.06 10

6

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 1.15 M p 33 1 0.28 M p 33

Mu

416.5

M r 3 3 1.15 0.9 416.5 1 0.28

362.06

M r 33 292.23 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

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

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

A A

3.7 m

W310x118

Mxf = 300 kN-m

Section A-A

= 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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

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

Construction.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

(kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

fy = 345 MPa

E = 200,000 MPa

G = 76923.08 MPa

Section: W310x118

Ag = 15000 mm2

r33 = 135.4006 mm, r22 = 77.5457 mm

I22 = 90,200,000 mm4

Z33 = 1,950,000 mm3

J = 1,600,000 mm4

C w 1.966 10

12 6

mm

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

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

C l .1 C l .2 ,

Flange is Class 2.

345 15000

C y f y Ag 5175 kN

1000

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)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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 3489.5 kN

E 2 10

2 2 5

Fex 2

2

2643 M P a

k 33 l33 1 3700

r33 135.4006

E 2 10

2 2 5

Fey 2

2

867 M P a

k 22 l 22 1 3700

r22 77.5457

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

1 1

C r A g Fe 1 2n

n

0.9 15000 867 1 0.6308 2 1.34

1.34

M p 33

Z 33 F y 1, 950, 000 345 672.75 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2

M M

2 1.75 1.05 a 0.3 a 2.5

Mb Mb

2

200 200

2 1.75 1.05 0.3 2.583 2.5

300 300

So 2 2.5

2

2 E

Mu E I 22 G J I 22 C w

l 22 l 22

2

2.5 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 3163.117 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 3 3 1.15 0.9 672.75 1 0.28 0.9 672.75

3163.117

M r 33 654.830 605.475

M r 33 605.5 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

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

behavior only.

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

TECHNICAL FEATURES TESTED

Section compactness check (beam-column)

Member interaction capacities, D/C, Method 1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

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

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

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

5.2.1, page 151.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

h w h 2 t f 200 2 85 183 m m

b f tw 2r 100 5.6 2 12

c 35.2 m m

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)

M 0 1

M1 1

y = 0.21

Loadings:

N Ed 210, 000 N

M E d , y , Left

0 N -m

M E d , y , R ight

43000 N -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Section Compactness:

235 235

1

fy 235

1 N Ed

1 1 1

2 2 ht w f y

1 210, 000

1 0.6737

2 2 200 5.6 235

For the tip in compression under combined bending and compression

9 9 1

cl .1 13.36

0.6737

c 35.2

e 4.14

tf 8.5

e 4.14 cl .1 13.36

0.5, so

396 396 1

cl .1 51.05 for combined bending & compression

13 1 13 0.6737 1

d 183

e 2 8 .3 9

tw 5 .6

e 32.68 cl .1 51.05

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

3

N c , Rk Af y 2.848 10 235 10 669 kN

6

6

E I 22 210000 10 19.43 10

2 2 6

N cr ,22 2

2

3287 kN

L 3.5

6

W pl , y f y 220.6 10 235 10 51.8 kN -m

6

M pl , y , Rk

Member Bending & Compression Capacity with Buckling

Compression Buckling Factors

3

2.858 10 235 10

6

Af y

y 0.451

3287 10

3

N cr , y

2 2

1 1

y 0.939 1

2 2

2 2

Auxiliary Terms

N Ed

1 1

210

N cr , y 3287

y 0.996

N Ed 210

1 y 1 0.939

N cr , y 3287

6

W pl , y 220.6 10

wy 6

1.135 1.5

W el , y 194.3 10

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Cmo Factor

M 0

y 0

E d , y ,right

43 10

3

M E d , y ,left

N Ed

C m y ,0 0.79 0.21 y 0.36 y 0.33

N cr , y

210

C m y ,0 0.79 0.21 0 0.36 0 0.33 0.782

3287

N

1 w y 1 2

1.6 1.6

C yy C m y 22

2

C my y

2 2

Ed

bLT

w w N c ,Rk

y y

M1

2 210 10

3

1.6 1.6

1 1.135 1 2 0.782 0.451 0.782 0.451

2 2

C yy 0

669 10

3

1.135 1.135

1.0

6

W el , y 194.3 10

C yy 1.061 6

0.881

W pl , y 220.6 10

210 10

3

N Ed

D / C A xial

669 10

3

N c ,Rk

y 0.939

M1 1

D / C Axial 0.334

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

0.782 43 10

3

C m y M E d , y ,right

D / C B ending y 0.996

M pl , y , R k 210 10

3

51.8 10

3

1 N Ed C 1 1.061

N cr , y 3287 10

yy 3

M1 1

D / C B ending 0.646

D / C T otal 0.980

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

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

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

compared with independent hand calculated results.

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 shear capacity

Section bending capacity with shear reduction

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

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

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

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

Narayanan & A. Beeby.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

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

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

h w h 2 t f 412.8 2 16 380.8 m m

c 74.8 m m

2 2

Wpl,y = 501,000 mm3

Other:

M 0 1.0

1.2

Loadings:

N Ed 0 kN

N 1050 kN @ mid-span

V Ed 525 kN

M Ed 367.5 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Section Compactness:

235 235

0.924

fy 275

cl .1 9 9 0.924 8.32 for pure compression

c 74.8

e 4.68

tf 16

e 4.68 cl .1 8.32

cl .1 72 72 0.924 66.56 for pure bending

d 360.4

e 37.94

tw 9.5

e 37.94 cl .1 66.56

Av m in h w t w 1.2 380.8 9.5 4341 m m

2

Av 4021.2 m m Av m in

2

So Av 4341 m m 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Av f y 4341 275

V pl , R d 689, 245 N

M0 3 1.0 3

V pl , R d 6 8 9 .2 k N

W pl , y f y 1501, 000 275

M c , y , Rd 412, 775, 000 N -m m

M0 1

M c , y , R d 412.8 kN -m

2

2V 2 525

2

Ed

1 1 0.27

V 689.2

pl , R d

2

fy Aw 275

2

0.27 3617.6

2

M v , y , Rd pl , y

W 1, 501, 000

M0 4 t w 1.0 4 9.5

M v , y , R d 386.8 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

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

Section compactness check (beam-column)

Section compression capacity

Section bending capacity with compression reduction

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

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

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

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

Narayanan & A. Beeby.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

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

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: S275 Steel

E = 210000 MPa

fy = 235 MPa

Section: 457x191x98 UB

A = 12,500 mm2

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

h w h 2 t f 467.2 2 19.6 428 m m

c 80.5 m m

2 2

Wpl,y = 2,232,000 mm3

Other:

M 0 1.0

Loadings:

P 1400 kN axial load

N Ed 1400 kN

M = 200 kN-m

Section Compactness:

235 235

1

fy 235

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

1 N Ed

1 1 1

2 2 ht w f y

1 1, 400, 000

1 2.7818 1, so

2 2 467.2 11.4 235

1.0

For the tip in compression under combined bending & compression

9 9 1

cl .1 9

1

c 80.5

e 4.11

tf 19.6

e 4.11 cl .1 9

0.5, so

396 396 1

cl .1 33.00 for combined bending & compression

13 1 13 1 1

d 407.6

e 35.75

tw 11.4

e 35.75 cl .1 33.00

456 456 1

cl .2 38.00

13 1 13 1 1

e 35.75 cl .2 38.00

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Af y 12, 500 235

N pl , Rd

M 0 1

N pl , R d 2937.5 kN

W pl , y f y 2, 232, 000 235

M pl , y , Rd

M 0 1

M pl , y , R d

524.5 kN -m

Axial Reduction

N E d 1400 kN 0.25 N pl , R d

0.25 2937.5 734.4 kN

N Ed 1400 kN 0.5 0.5 573.3 kN

M 0 1

N Ed 1400

n 0.48

N pl , R d 2937.5

a 0.40

A 12, 500

1 n 1 0.48

M N , y ,Rd

M pl , y , R d

524.5

1 0.5 a 1 0.5 0.4

M N , y ,Rd

342.2 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

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

capacities are compared with independent hand calculated results.

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)

Member compression capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

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

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

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

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Member:

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

M 0 =

1.1

Loadings:

N Ed = 1 kN

Section Compactness:

250 250

= = = 1

fy 250

=

p 8.4= 8.4 =

1 8.4

b 70

e = = = 4.93

t f 14.2

=

e 4.93 <

= p 8.40

So Flange is Plastic in compression

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

p= N / A & s= 42= 42 for compression

d 318

e = = = 39.26

tw 8.1

=

e 39.26 < =

s 42

So Web is Plastic in compression

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).

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

2 E 2 200, 000

=

Euler Buckling Stress: f cc = 2

= 2

4485 MPa

K z Lz 3, 000

rz 143

fy 250

=

z = = 0.2361

f cc 4485

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 0.5 1 + ( 0.2 ) + =

2 0.5 1 + 0.21( 0.2361 0.2 ) + 0.23612

=0.532

1 1

=

Stress Reduction Factor: = = 0.9920

+

2 2

0.532 + 0.5322 0.23612

fy 250

f cd , z =

=

0.992 =

255.5 MPa

M 0 1.1

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

2 E 2 200, 000

=

Euler Buckling Stress: f cc = 2

= 2

177 MPa

K z Lz 3, 000

rz 28.4

fy 250

= y = = 1.189

f cc 177

= 0.5 1 + ( 0.2 ) + =

2 0.5 1 + 0.34 (1.189 0.2 ) + 1.1892

=1.375

1 1

=

Stress Reduction Factor: = = 0.4842

+

2 2

1.375 + 1.3752 1.1892

fy 250

f cd , y =

=

0.4842 =

110.1MPa Governs

M 0 1.1

=

Pd Af=

cd , y 6670 110.1

Pd = 734.07 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

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

Material Properties Loading Design Properties

E = 200x103 MPa w = 48.74 kN/m fy = 250 MPa

v = 0.3 Section: ISLB 500

G = 76923 MPa

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Section compactness check (beam)

Section shear capacity

Member bending capacity

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

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

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

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

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

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

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

Section Bending Resistance,

157.70 157.93 0.14%

Md(LTB) (kN-m)

Section Shear Resistance,

603.59 603.59 0.00%

Vd (kN)

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: Fe 250

E = 200,000 MPa

G = 76,923 MPa

fy = 250 MPa

(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

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

ry = 33.4 mm

Member:

Lleft = 4.9 m

Lcenter = 6 m (governs)

Lright = 4.9 m

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

M 0 =

1.1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Loadings:

N Ed = 0 kN

= 48.75 kN/m

Section Compactness:

250 250

= = = 1

fy 250

=

p 9.4= 9.4 =

1 9.4

b 90

e = = = 6.38

t f 14.1

=

e 6.38 <

= p 9.40

So Flange is Plastic in pure bending

84 84 1

=

p = = 84

(1 + r1 ) (1 + 0)

d 471.8

e = = = 51.28

tw 9.2

=

e 51.28 <=

p 84.00

So Web is Plastic in pure bending

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

fy 250

Vd= htw= 500 9.2

M 0 3 1.1 3

Vd = 603.59 kN

h f =h t f =500 14.1 =485.9

3

bi ti 3 2b f t f

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

=

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)

2 EI y 2 EI w

=M cr C1 GI +

( KL ) ( KL )

2 t 2

=M cr 1.0 76,923 462,508 +

( 6, 000 )

2

( 6, 000 )

2

M cr = 215,936,919.3 N-mm

LT =

0.21

b =1.0

=

LT = = 1.337

M cr 215,936,919.3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

LT 0.5 1 + LT ( LT 0.2 ) + LT

= = 2

0.5 1 + 0.21 (1.337 0.2 ) + 1.337 2

LT =

1.5127

1

= LT 1.0

LT + LT 2 LT 2

1

LT

= = 0.450 1.0

1.5127 + 1.5127 2 1.337 2

LT f y 0.450 250

=

fbd = = 102.3MPa

M 0 1.1

M d , LTB = 157,925, 037.7 N-mm

M d , LTB = 157.93kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

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

Software Verification

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

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

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

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

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

Subramanian.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

Compactness Plastic Plastic 0.00%

Plastic Compression Resistance,

6520 6520 0.00%

Nd (kN)

Buckling Resistance in Compression,

6511 6511 0.00%

Pdz (kN)

Buckling Resistance in Compression,

5295 5295 0.00%

Pdy (kN)

Section Bending Resistance,

897.46 897.46 0.00%

Mdz (kN-m)

Section Bending Resistance,

325.65 325.65 0.00%

Mdy (kN-m)

Buckling Resistance in Bending,

886.84 886.84 0.00%

MdLTB (kN-m)

Section Shear Resistance,

1009.2 1009.2 0.00%

Vdy (kN)

Section Shear Resistance,

2961.6 2961.6 0.00%

Vdz (kN)

Interaction Capacity, D/C 1.050 1.050 0.00%

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

CONCLUSION

The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

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

rz = 143.668 mm, ry = 81.222 mm

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

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

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

Member:

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

M 0 = 1.1

Loadings:

P = 2500 kN

Vz = 25 kN

Vy = 175 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: 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

Section Compactness:

fy 250

= = = 1

250 250

P 2,500, 000

=r1 = = 2.01676

fy 2.5

dtw 246.8 22.1

mo 1.1

Localized Buckling for Flange:

p= 9.4= 9.4 1= 9.4

b 158.5

=

e = = 4.45

tf 35.6

So Flange is Plastic in pure bending

84 84 1

=p = = 27.84

(1 + r1 ) (1 + 2.01676)

d 246.8

=

e = = 11.20

tw 22.1

e= 11.20 < p= 27.84

So Web is Plastic in bending & compression

Section is Plastic.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

Ag f y 28687.7 250

=

Nd =

M0 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

M0 3 1.1 3

VPz = 1009.2 kN

Avy =2b f t f =

2 317 35.6 =22,570.4 mm 2

fy 250

=

VPy = Avy 22570.4

M0 3 1.1 3

VPy = 2961.6 kN

For major z-z axis

b Z pz f y 1 3,948,812.3 250 1.2Z ez f y 1.2 3, 403, 012.8 250

M dz = = =

M0 1.1 M0 1.1

=

M dz 897.46 kN m 933.54 kN m

=M dz 897.46 kN m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

M dy = = =

M0 1.1 M0 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.

Vy =

175 kN < 0.6VPy =

0.6 2961.6 =

1777 kN No shear reduction is needed.

P 2500

=

n = = 0.383

N d 6520

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

=

M ndz 614.2 kN m < 897.46 kN m

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

=

M ndy 308.0 kN m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

Non-Dimensional Slenderness Ratio:

h 348

= = 1.1 < 1.2

b f 317

and

=t f 35.6 mm < 40 mm

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

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

Z-Z Axis Parameters:

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

K z = 0.65

K z Lz 2600

K z Lz =0.65 4000 =2600 mm, = =18.097

rz 143.668

2E 2 200, 000

=

Euler Buckling Stress: f cr , z = = 6027 MPa

(18.097 )

2 2

K z Lz

rz

fy 250

=z = = 0.2037

f cr , z 6022

z = 0.5214

1 1

=

Stress Reduction Factor: z = = 0.9987

z + z z

2 2

0.5214 + 0.52142 0.2037 2

fy 250

f cd , z= = 0.9987 = 226.978 MPa

M0 1.1

=

Pdz f=

cd , z Ag 226.978 28, 687.7

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

Pdz = 6511 kN

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

K y = 1.00

K y Ly 4000

K y Ly =

1 4000 =

4000 mm, = =

49.25

ry 81.222

2E 2 200, 000

=

Euler Buckling Stress: f cr , y = = 813.88 MPa

( 49.25)

2 2

K y Ly

ry

fy 250

=y = = 0.5542

f cr , y 813.88

y = 0.7404

1 1

=

Stress Reduction Factor: y = = 0.8122

y + y y

2 2

0.7404 + 0.74042 0.55422

fy 250

f cd , y= = 0.8122 = 184.584 MPa

M0 1.1

=

Pdy f=

cd , y Ag 184.584 28, 687.7

Pdy = 5295 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

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

2 EI y 2 EI w

=M cr C1 GI +

( KL ) ( KL )

2 t 2

=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

LT = 0.21

b = 1.0

b Z pz f y 1 3,948,812.3 250

=LT = = 0.2534

M cr 15,374, 789,309

LT = 0.5377

1

= LT 1.0

LT + LT 2 + LT 2

1

LT

= = 0.9882 1.0

0.5377 + 0.5377 2 + 0.25342

LT f y 0.9882 250

=

fbd = = 224.58 MPa

M0 1.1

M dLTB = Z pz fbd = 3,948,812.3 224.58 = 886,839, 489 N mm

=

M dLTB 886.84 kN m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

Member Bending & Compression Capacity with Buckling

Z-Z Axis

P 2500

=

nz = = 0.3839

Pdz 6511

=

K z 1.0014 1.3072 so K z = 1.0014

M 2 350

z = = = 1

M1 350

= 0.6 + 0.4

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 1.167 1.378 so K y = 1.167

M2 0

= y = = 0

M 1 100

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

Lateral-Torsional Buckling

CmLT = 0.4

0.1LT n y 0.1n y

K LT = 1 1

CmLT 0.25 CmLT 0.25

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

K LT = 1 = 0.920 1 = 0.831

0.4 0.25 0.4 0.25

K LT = 0.920

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

=+ + = + +

C Pdy M dy M dLTB 5295 325.65 886.84

D

= 0.472 + 0.215 + 0.363

C

D

= 1.050 (Governs)

C

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

= + + =+ +

C Pdz M dy M dLTB 6511 325.65 886.84

D

= 0.384 + 0.129 + 0.158

C

D

= 0.671

C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

compared with independent hand calculated results.

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 compactness check (beam-column)

Section compression capacity

Section shear capacity

Section bending capacity with compression & shear reductions

Interaction capacity, D/C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

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

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

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

Narayanan & A. Beeby.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

Section Compression Resistance,

2797.6 2797.6 0.00%

Nc,Rd (kN)

Section Shear Resistance,

719.2 719.2 0.00%

Vc,Rd,y (kN)

Section Plastic Bending Resistance,

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, 481.3 481.3 0.00%

MV,y,Rd (kN-m)

Interaction Capacity, D/C 0.644 0.644 0.00%

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: S275 Steel

E = 210000 MPa

fy = 235 MPa

Section: 457x191x98 UB

A = 12,500 mm2

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

h w h 2 t f 467.2 2 19.6 428 m m

c 80.5 m m

2 2

Wpl,y = 2,230,000 mm3

Other:

M 0 1.05

Loadings:

P 1400 kN axial load

M y

200 kN -m bending load at one end

Results in the following internal forces:

N Ed 1400 kN

V Ed 500 kN

M y ,Ed

200 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Section Compactness:

235 235

1

fy 235

1 N Ed

1 1 1

2 2 ht w f y

1 1, 400, 000

1 2.7818 1, so

2 2 467.2 11.4 235

1.0

For the tip in compression under combined bending & compression

9 9 1

cl .1 9

1

c 80.5

e 4.11

tf 19.6

e 4.11 cl .1 9

0.5, so

396 396 1

cl .1 33.00 for combined bending & compression

13 1 13 1 1

d 407.6

e 35.75

tw 11.4

e 35.75 cl .1 33.00

456 456 1

cl .2 38.00

13 1 13 1 1

e 35.75 cl .2 38.00

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Af y 12, 500 235

N c , Rd N pl , Rd

M 0 1.05

N c , R d 2 7 9 7 .6 k N

AV , y A 2 bt f t f t w 2 r 12, 500 2 192.8 19.6 19.6 11.4 2 10.2

AV , y 5, 565.5 m m

2

fy 235

Vc ,Rd , y Avy 5, 565.5

M 0 3 1.05 3

V c , R d , y 719.2 kN

1.0

37.5 72

tw 11.4 fy 1.0 235

W pl , y f y 2, 230, 000 235

M c , y , Rd M pl , y , Rd

M 0 1.05

M c , y , R d 499.1 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

V E d 500 kN 0.5 V c , R d 359.6 kN Shear Reduction is needed

2

2

2V E d

2

2 500

1 1 0 .1 5 2 5

V 7 1 9 .2

c ,Rd

Av

2

0.1525 4879.2

2

pl , y

W yk

f 2, 230, 000 235

4tw 4 11.4

M y ,V , R d

M y ,c , R d

M 0 1.05

M V , r , R d 481.3 kN -m

N Ed 1400

n 0.50

N pl , R d 2797.6

a 0.40 0.5

A 12, 500

1 n 1 0.5

M N , y ,Rd

M pl , y , R d

499.1

1 0.5 a 1 0.5 0.4

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

0 0.414 0.644

C M N , y , R d M N , z , R d 310.8 M N , y ,Rd

D

0.644 (Governs)

C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

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

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

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

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

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

Narayanan & A. Beeby.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

Section Compression Resistance,

2,797.6 2,797.6 0.00%

Nc,Rd (kN)

Buckling Resistance in Compression,

2,797.6 2,797.6 0.00%

Nbyy,Rd (kN)

Buckling Resistance in Compression,

2,797.6 2,797.6 0.00%

Nbzz,Rd (kN)

Section Plastic Bending Resistance,

499.1 499.1 0.00%

Mc,y,Rd (kN-m)

Section Plastic Bending Resistance,

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)

Section Shear Resistance,

667.5 667.5 0.00%

Vc,y,Rd (kN)

Section Shear Resistance,

984.7 984.7 0.00%

Vc,z,Rd (kN)

Interaction Capacity, D/C 2.044 2.044 0.00%

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material: S275 Steel

E = 210,000 MPa

G = 80,769 MPa

fy = 235 MPa

Section: 457x191x98 UB

A = 12,500 mm2

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

hw = h 2t f = 467.2 2 19.6 = 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:

M 0 =

1.05

M1 =

1.05

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Loadings:

P = 1400 kN axial load

M z 1 = 100 kN-m

M z 2 = 100 kN-m

M y 1 = 200 kN-m

M y 2 = 0 kN-m

Results in the following internal forces:

N Ed = 1400 kN

M y , Ed = 200 kN-m

M z , Ed = 100 kN-m

Vy , Ed = 500 kN-m

Vz , Ed = 0 kN-m

Section Compactness:

235 235

= = = 1

fy 235

1 N Ed

1 =

1 1

2 2htw f y

1 1, 400, 000

=

1 = 2.7818 > 1, so

2 2 467.2 11.4 235

=1.0

For the tip in compression under combined bending & compression

9 9 1

cl .1 = = = 9

1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

c 90.7

e = = = 4.63

t f 19.6

=

e 4.63 < =

cl .1 9

So Flange is Class 1 in combined bending and compression

> 0.5, so

396 396 1

= = = 33.00 for combined bending & compression

13 1 13 1 1

cl .1

d 428

e = = = 37.54

tw 11.4

=

e 37.54 > =

cl .1 33.00

456 456 1

= = = 38.00

13 1 13 1 1

cl .2

=

e 37.54 <

= cl .2 38.00

So Web is Class 2 in combined bending & compression.

Af y 12,500 235

N= N pl= =

M 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 )

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

AV , y = 5,165.7 mm 2

fy 235

=

Vc , y , Rd = Avy 5,165.7

M 0 3 1.05 3

Vc , y , Rd = 667.5 kN

AV , z =A hwtw =12,500 428 11.4 =7, 620.8 mm 2

fy 235

=

Vc , z , Rd = Avy 7, 620.8

M 0 3 1.05 3

Vc , z , Rd = 984.7 kN

=1.0

== 37.5 < = =

72

tw 11.4 fy 1.0 235

For major y-y axis

W pl , y f y 2, 230, 000 235

=

M M= =

M 0

c , y , Rd pl , y , Rd

1.05

M c , y , Rd = 499.1kN-m

W pl , z f y 379, 000 235

=

M M= =

M 0

c , z , Rd pl , z , Rd

1.05

M c , z , Rd = 84.8 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

For major y-y axis

Vy ,=

Ed 500 kN > 0.5 Vc , y ,=

Rd 333.7 kN Shear Reduction is needed

2

2VEd 2 500 2

= 1= 1= 0.2482

V 667.5

c , Rd

Av 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

M 0 1.05

M V ,r , Rd = 470.1kN-m

Vz , Ed = 0 kN < 0.5 Vc , z , Rd No shear Reduction is needed

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

n<a

n a 2 0.5 0.4 2

M N , z , Rd= M pl , z , Rd 1 = 84.8 1

1 a 1 0.4

M N , z , Rd = 82.26 kN-m

Non-Dimensional Slenderness Ratio:

Steel is S235

h 467.2

= = 2.4 > 1.2

b f 192.8

and

=t f 19.6 mm < 40 mm

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

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

For buckling curve a, =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

2 E 2 210, 000

=N cr , y = = 5,925, 691kN

K y Ly 12,500 ( 2.091)

2 2

A

ry

Af y 12,500 235

=

y = = 0.022

N cr , y 5,925, 691

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

( )

y 0.5 1 + y y 0.2 + = 0.5 1 + 0.21( 0.022 0.2 ) + 0.0222

2

=

y

y =0.482

1 1

=

Stress Reduction Factor: y = = 1.0388

y + y y

2 2

0.482 + 0.482 2

0.0222

=

y 1.0388 > 1.0, so=

y 1.0

N= =

M1

byy , Rd

1.05

N byy , Rd = 2, 797.6 kN

For buckling curve b, =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

2 E 2 210, 000

=N cr , z = = 304, 052 kN

K z Lz 12,500 ( 9.231)

2 2

A

rz

Af y 12,500 235

=

z = = 0.098

N cr , z 304, 052

( )

z 0.5 1 + z z 0.2 + = 0.5 1 + 0.34 ( 0.098 0.2 ) + 0.0982

2

=

z

z =0.488

1 1

=

Stress Reduction Factor: z = = 1.0362

z + z z

2 2

0.488 + 0.488 2

0.0982

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

=

z 1.0362 > 1.0, so=

z 1.0

N= =

M1

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).

LT =

0.49

LT ,0 =(default

0.4 for rolled section)

=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

=

1.75 1.05 B + 0.3 B = 1.75 1.05 + 0.3 = 1.75

MA MA 200 200

1 1

=kc = = 1.329

1.33 0.33 1.33 0.33 1.75

2 EI z I w ( Lcr , z ) GIT

2

M cr =

+

( cr , z ) z

2 EI z

2

L I

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

M cr =

1.75 + 2

4002 23, 469,998 210, 000 23, 469,998

M cr = 119, 477, 445,900 N-mm

=

LT = = 0.066

M cr 119, 477, 445,900

( )

LT 0.5 1 + LT LT LT ,0 + = 0.5 1 + 0.49 ( 0.066 0.4 ) + 0.75 0.0662

2

=

LT

LT =

0.420

( )

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

2 2

f = 0.987

1 1 1 1

= LT 1.0 or 2

f LT + LT 2 + LT 2 LT f

1 1 1 1

LT 1.0 or

0.987 0.420 + 0.4202 + 0.75 0.0662 0.066 0.987

2

=

LT 1.2118 (1.0 or 230.9 )

so

LT =

1.0

fy 235

M b , Rd =

LT W pl , y =

1.0 2, 230, 000

M1 1.05

M b , Rd = 499.095 kN-m

Section Bending & Compression Capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2 5n

D M y , Ed M z , Ed

2 50.5

200 100

= + =

310.8 + 82.3 =

0.414 + 1.630

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

D

= 2.044 (Governs)

C

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

D N Ed M y , Ed M z , Ed

= + k yy + k yz

C y Af yk W f W pl , z f yk

LT pl , y yk

M1 M1 M1

= + 0.547 + 0.479

C 112,500 235 2, 230, 000 235 379, 000 235

1

1.05 1.05 1.05

D

=0.5 + 0.22 + 0.56

C

D

= 1.284

C

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

D N Ed M y , Ed M z , Ed

= + k zy + k zz

C z Af yk W f W pl , z f yk

LT pl , y yk

M1 M1 M1

= + 0.698 + 0.798

C 112,500 235 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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.

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

capacities are compared with independent hand calculated results.

L

A A

Section A-A

L=6m

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

v = 0.3 Section: 350WC197

G = 76923.08 MPa

Section compactness check (compression)

Section compression capacity

Member compression capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

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

available through the program Help menu.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

(b f t w ) fy 350 20 250

e 5.89

2tf 250 2 28 250

ep 9, ey 16, ew 90

Flange is compact

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

h fy 331 250

e 16.55

tw 250 20 250

ep 30, ey 45, ew 180

Web is compact.

Section is Compact.

Section is not Slender, so Kf = 1.0

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

3

N s 6275kN

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

r2 2 89.264 r3 3 139.15

l e 22 K f fy 6000 1 250

n 22 67.216

r22 250 89.264 250

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

a 22 2 0 .3 6 3

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

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2 2

22 77.398

1 22 1 0.2083

90 90

22 2

2

1.317

77.398

2 22 2

90 90

90

2

1 1

c 22 22

22 22

2

90

c 22 1.317 1 1 0.6988

1.317 77.398

N c 22 c 22 N s N s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 1

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The frame object bending strengths are tested in this example.

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

v = 0.3 Section: 350WC197

G = 76923.08 MPa

Section compactness check (bending)

Section bending capacity

Member bending capacity

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 1

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

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

available through the program Help menu.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

Section Bending Capacity,

837.5 837.5 0%

Ms,major (kN-m)

837.5 837.5 0%

Member Bending Capacity,

Mb (kN-m)

CONCLUSION

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 1

HAND CALCULATION

Properties:

Material:

fy = 250 MPa

Section: 350WC197

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

I22 = 200,000,000 mm4

Z33 = 2,936,555.891 mm2

S33 = 3,350,000 mm2

J = 5,750,000 mm4

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

Member:

le22 = 6000 mm (unbraced length)

Considered to be a braced frame

Loadings:

M m * 1000 kN -m

M 2 * 250 kN -m

M 3 * 500 kN -m

M 4 * 750 kN -m

Section Compactness:

Localized Buckling for Flange:

(b f t w ) fy 350 20 250

e 5.89

2tf 250 2 28 250

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 1

ep 9, ey 16, ew 90

Flange is compact

Localized Buckling for Web:

h fy 331 250

e 16.55

tw 250 20 250

ep 82, ey 115, ew 180

Web is compact.

Section is Compact.

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

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

2

2

M s 33 M s , m ajor

837.5 kN -m

kt = 1 (Program default)

kr = 1 (Program default)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 1

2

2 EI EIw

2

M oa M o 2

22

G J 2

le le

2 2 10 5 2 10 8 2 10 4.59 10

2 5 12

M oa M o 2 76, 923.08 5, 750, 000 2

8, 400 8, 400

M oa M o 1786.938 kN -m

M 2

837.5 2

s 0.6 0.6

Ms 837.5

s

3 3

M oa M oa 1786.938 1786.938

s 0.7954

1.7 M m *

m 2.5

M 2 * M 3 * M 4 *

2 2 2

1.7 1000

m 1.817 2.5

250 500 750

2 2 2

M b 1210.64 kN -m 837.5 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

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

example.

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Section bending capacity with compression reduction

Member in-plane bending capacity with compression reduction

Member out-of-plane bending capacity with compression reduction

RESULTS COMPARISON

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

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

available through the program Help menu.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

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

The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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)

Considered to be a braced frame

=0.9

Loadings:

N * 200 kN

M m * 1000 kN -m

Section Compactness:

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

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

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

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

N* 200

M r 33 1.18 M s 33 1 1.18 837.5 1 M s 33 837.5

N s 0.9 6275

M r 33 953.252 837.5

M r 33 837.5kN -m

Strong-axis buckling strength needs to be calculated:

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

le 3 3 6000

43.119

r3 3 139.15

l e 33 K f fy 6000 1 250

n 33 43.119

r33 250 139.15 250

2100( n 3 3 13.5)

a 33 19.141

n 3 3 15.3 n 3 3 2050

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2 2

33 52.690

1 33 1 0.1278

90 90

33 2

2

2.145

52.690

2 33 2

90 90

90

2

c 33 33 1 1

33 33

2

90

c 33 2.145 1 1 0.8474

2.145 50.690

N c 33 c 33 N s N s

N c 33 0.8474 6275

N c 33 5318 kN

M m in 0

m 0

M m ax 1000

1 m

3

N* 1 m

3

N*

M i M s 33 1 1 1.18 1

2 N c 33 2 N c 33

1 0

3

200 1 0

3

200

M i 837.5 1 1 1.18 1

2 0.9 5318 2 0.9 5318

M i 823.11 kN -m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

1

bc

1 1 m

3

N *

m

0 .4 0 .2 3

2 2 N c 2 2

1

bc

1 0 1 0 3 200

0.4 0.23

2 2 0.9 4385

bc 4.120

EIw

2

2 10 4.59 10

2 6 12

2

lz 6000

2

N oz G J 76923.08 5.75 10

6

I 33 I 22 4.86 2 10 8

Ag 25100

N oz 4.423 10

11

kN

M b 33 o 1.0 0.7954 837.5 666.145 kN -m

N * N*

M o 33 bc M b 33 o 1 1 M r 33

N c 22

N 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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear design of a rectangular concrete beam is calculated in this

example.

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"

E= 3600 k/in2 d = 13.5 in fc = 4 k/in2

= 0.2 b = 10.0 in fy = 60 k/in2

G= 1500 k/in2 I = 3,413 in4

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match for the flexural and the shear

reinforcing.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

= 0.9, Ag = 160 sq-in

200

As,min = b w d = 0.450 sq-in (Govern)

fy

'

3 fc

= bw d = 0.427 sq-in

fy

f c 4000

1 0.85 0.05 0.85

1000

0.003

c m ax d 5.0625 in

0.003 0.005

a m ax 1 c m ax = 4.303 in

Combo1

wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 9.736 k/ft

2

wu l

M u

= 9.736 102/8 = 121.7 k-ft = 1460.4 k-in

8

The depth of the compression block is given by:

2M

a d

2 u

d = 4.183 in (a < amax)

0 . 85 f c b

'

M u 1460 . 4

As = =

a 0 . 9 60 13 . 5 4 . 183 / 2

fyd

2

As = 2.37 sq-in

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Shear Design

The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:

= 0.75

Check the limit of f c :

The concrete shear capacity is given by:

Vc = 2 f c bd = 12.807 k

The maximum shear that can be carried by reinforcement is given by:

Vs = 8 f c bd = 51.229 k

The following limits are required in the determination of the reinforcement:

( Vc/2) = 6.4035 k

Vmax = Vc + Vs = 64.036 k

Given Vu, Vc and Vmax, the required shear reinforcement in area/unit length for

any load combination is calculated as follows:

If Vu (Vc/2),

Av

= 0,

s

Av (V u V c ) A

= v

s f ys d s m in

where:

Av

b b 3

m ax 50 w , w f c

s m in f f 4

yt yt

a failure condition is declared.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Combo1

Vu = 9.736 (5-13.5/12) = 37.727 k

V c / 2 6.4035 k V u 37.727 k V m ax 64.036 k

Av 10 10 3

m ax 50 , 4, 000

s m in 60, 000 60, 000 4

2

Av in

m ax 0.0083 , 0.0079 0.0083

s m in in

Av (V u V c )

2 2

in in

= 0.041 0.492

s f ys d in ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

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

= 0.2 d = 19.5 in fy = 60 k/in2

G= 1500 k/in2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Demand/Capacity Ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

fc = 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:

87 87

cb = dt = 19.5 = 11.54 inch

87 + f y 87 + 60

Pn = C c C s T

where

C c = 0.85 f c ab = 0.85 4 14 a = 47.6 a

'

C s = 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

< fy

Pn = 47.6 a + 226.4 - 4 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a '

Pn = C

' c d - Cs d - d

e 2

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 = 47.6 a 19.5 - 226.4 19.5 - 2.5

18.5 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2

Pn = 50.17 a - 1.29 a + 208 (Eqn. 2)

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

Pn = 50.17 11.43 - 1.29 11.43 + 208 = 612.9 kips

2

19.5 - 13.45

fs = 87 = 39.13 ksi

13.45

s = t f s E s = 0.00135

Pn2 = 47.6 11.43 + 226.4 - 4 39.13 613.9 kips

Which is very close to the calculated Pn2 of 612.9 kips (less than 1% difference)

10

M n = Pn e = 612.9 510.8 kips-ft

12

13.45 - 2.5

s = 0.003 = 0.00244 > y 0.00207 ksi

'

13.45

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

8) Calculate ,

d t = d = 19.5 inch, c = 13.45 inch

19.45 - 13.45

t (at the tension reinforcement level) = 0.003 = 0.00135

13.45

M n = 0.65 510.8 332 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear design of a rectangular concrete beam is calculated in this

example.

This example is tested using the ACI 318-11 concrete design code. The flexural

and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent hand calculated

results.

A 10"

CL

2.5" 13.5"

A

Section A-A

10' = 120"

E= 3600 k/in2 d = 13.5 in fc = 4 k/in2

= 0.2 b = 10.0 in fy = 60 k/in2

G= 1500 k/in2 I = 3,413 in4

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 318-11 Building Code.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match for the flexural and the shear

reinforcing.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

= 0.9, Ag = 160 sq-in

200

As,min = b w d = 0.450 sq-in (Govern)

fy

'

3 fc

= bw d = 0.427 sq-in

fy

f c 4000

1 0.85 0.05 0.85

1000

0.003

c m ax d 5.0625 in

0.003 0.005

a m ax 1 c m ax = 4.303 in

Combo1

wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 9.736 k/ft

2

wu l

M u

= 9.736 102/8 = 121.7 k-ft = 1460.4 k-in

8

The depth of the compression block is given by:

2M

a d

2 u

d = 4.183 in (a < amax)

0 . 85 f c b

'

M u 1460 . 4

As = =

a 0 . 9 60 13 . 5 4 . 183 / 2

fyd

2

As = 2.37 sq-in

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Shear Design

The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:

= 0.75

Check the limit of f c :

The concrete shear capacity is given by:

Vc = 2 f c bd = 12.807 k

The maximum shear that can be carried by reinforcement is given by:

Vs = 8 f c bd = 51.229 k

The following limits are required in the determination of the reinforcement:

( Vc/2) = 6.4035 k

( Vc + 50 bd) = 11.466 k

Vmax = Vc + Vs = 64.036 k

Given Vu, Vc and Vmax, the required shear reinforcement in area/unit length for

any load combination is calculated as follows:

If Vu (Vc/2),

Av

= 0,

s

Av (V u V c ) A

= v

s f ys d s m in

where:

Av

b b 3

m ax 50 w , w f c

s m in f f 4

yt yt

a failure condition is declared.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Combo1

Vu = 9.736 (5-13.5/12) = 37.727 k

V c / 2 6.4035 k V u 37.727 k V m ax 64.036 k

Av 10 10 3

m ax 50 , 4, 000

s m in 60, 000 60, 000 4

2

Av in

m ax 0.0083 , 0.0079 0.0083

s m in in

Av (V u V c )

2 2

in in

= 0.041 0.492

s f ys d in ft

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

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

= 0.2 d = 19.5 in fy = 60 k/in2

G= 1500 k/in2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Demand/Capacity Ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

fc = 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 fro a balanced condition, cb:

87 87

cb = dt = 19.5 = 11.54 inch

87 + f y 87 + 60

Pn = C c C s T

where

C c = 0.85 f c ab = 0.85 4 14 a = 47.6 a

'

C s = 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

< fy

Pn = 47.6 a + 226.4 - 4 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a '

Pn = C

' c d - Cs d - d

e 2

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 = 47.6 a 19.5 - 226.4 19.5 - 2.5

18.5 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2

Pn = 50.17 a - 1.29 a + 208 (Eqn. 2)

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

Pn = 50.17 11.43 - 1.29 11.43 + 208 = 612.9 kips

2

19.5 - 13.45

fs = 87 = 39.13 ksi

13.45

s = t f s E s = 0.00135

Pn2 = 47.6 11.43 + 226.4 - 4 39.13 613.9 kips

Which is very close to the calculated Pn2 of 612.9 kips (less than 1% difference)

10

M n = Pn e = 612.9 510.8 kips-ft

12

13.45 - 2.5

s = 0.003 = 0.00244 > y 0.00207 ksi

'

13.45

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

8) Calculate ,

d t = d = 19.5 inch, c = 13.45 inch

19.45 - 13.45

t (at the tension reinforcement level) = 0.003 = 0.00135

13.45

M n = 0.65 510.8 332 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Shear and Flexural Reinforcement Design of a Singly Reinforced T-Beam

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design. The load level is

adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions:

The stress-block extends below the flange but remains within the balanced

condition permitted by AS 3600-09.

The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress

allowed by AS 3600-09, requiring design shear reinforcement.

flange 100 mm thick and 600 mm wide is considered. The beam is shown in

Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame elements

automatically generated. The maximum element size has been specified to be

500 mm. The beam is supported by columns without rotational stiffnesses and

with very large vertical stiffness (1 1020 kN/m).

The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case

(DL30) and one live load case (LL130), with only symmetric third-point loads of

magnitudes 30, and 130 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load

combinations (COMB130) is defined using the AS 3600-09 load combination

factors of 1.2 for dead load and 1.5 for live load. The model is analyzed for both

of these load cases and the load combination.

The beam moment and shear force are computed analytically. Table 1 shows the

comparison of the design longitudinal reinforcements. Table 2 shows the

comparison of the design shear reinforcements.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS2013

REVISION NO.: 0

600 m m

75 m m 100 m m

500 m m

75 m m

300 m m

B e a m S e c tio n

S h e a r F o rc e

B e n d in g M o m e n t

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Depth of comp. reinf., d' = 75 mm

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

Poissons 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.

A s ,m in = 3.00 sq-cm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Av

Reinforcement Area,

s

(sq-cm/m)

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match for the flexural and the shear

reinforcing.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

= 0.8 for bending

0.67 2 0.85, w here 2 1.0 0.003 f c ' 0.91 , use 2 0.85

k u 0.36

f ct , f

2

D

Ast . m in b bw d

d f sy

D h 500 m m

1/ 4

bf Ds bf

b 0.20 1 0.4 0.18 0.20 = 0.2378

bw D bw

f sy f y 460 M P a 500 M P a

f ct , f

2

D

Ast . m in 0.2378 bd

d f sy

= 299.9 mm2

COMB130

V* = (1.2Pd + 1.5Pl) = 231kN

*

V L

*

M = 462 kN-m

3

The depth of the compression block is given by:

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS2013

REVISION NO.: 0

*

2M

ad d

2

= 100.755 mm (a > Ds), so design as a T-beam.

2 f 'c b f

The compressive force developed in the concrete alone is given by the following

methodology:

The first part of the calculation is for balancing the compressive force from the

flange, Cf, and the second part of the calculation is for balancing the compressive

force from the web, Cw. Cf is given by:

C f 2 f c b f b w m in D s , a m ax 765 kN

Therefore,

Cf 765

As 1 1663.043 m m

2

f sy 460

m in D s , a m ax

M uf C f d = 229.5 kN-m

2

Again, the value for is 0.80 by default. Therefore, the balance of the

moment, M* to be carried by the web is:

M uw M M uf

*

= 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 d

2

= 101.5118 mm

2 f c b w

reinforcement is then given by:

M uw

As 2 = 1688.186 mm2

a

f sy d 1

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Shear Design

= 0.7 for shear

Calculated at the end of the beam, so M=0 and Ast = 0.

The shear force carried by the concrete, Vuc, is calculated as:

1 3

A

V uc 1 2 3 bv d o f cv st 0 kN

bv d o

where,

f c = 3.107 N/mm2

1/ 3

f cv 4M Pa

do

1 1.1 1.6 1.1 =1.2925,

1000

3 = 1

bv = bw = 300mm as there are no grouted ducts

do = d = 425 mm

The shear force is limited to a maximum of:

V u .m ax 0.2 f c bd o = 765 kN

And the beam must have a minimum shear force capacity of:

*

*

Asv

bw f 'c bv

mm

2

s m in

f sy f sy

m

2

Asv mm

228.26

s m in m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS2013

REVISION NO.: 0

COMB130

Since Vu . min 53.55 kN V * 231 kN Vu . max 535.5 kN

A sv V *

V uc

A sv

s f sy d o cot v s m in

v = the angle between the axis of the concrete compression strut and the

longitudinal axis of the member, which varies linearly from 30

degrees when V*=Vu,min to 45 degrees when V*=Vu,max = 35.52

degrees

v = 35.52 degrees

Asv 213 0 mm

2

Asv mm

2

1205.04 228.26

s 0.7 460 425 cot 35.52 o

m s m in m

2

Asv cm

12.05

s m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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.

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

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Tied reinforced concrete column design

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

600 600

cb = dt = 490 = 277.4 mm

600 + f y 600 + 460

N = Cc Cs T

where

C c 2 f cab 0.85 30 350 a 8925 a

C s As f y

2 f c 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

< fy

N 1 8925 a 1.086, 250 2500 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a

N2 C c 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 8925 a 490 1, 086, 250 490 60

465 2

2

N 9404.8 a 9.597 a 1, 004, 489 (Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

a 0.84 333.9 280.5 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

N 2 8925 280.5 9.597 280.5 1, 004, 489 2, 888, 240 N

4 9 0 3 3 3 .9

fs 6 0 0 2 8 0 .5 MPa

3 3 3 .9

s t f s E s = 0.0014

N 1 8925 280.5 1, 086, 250 2500 280.5 2, 887, 373 N

250

M N e 2888 722 kN-m

1000

333.9 60

s 0.003 0.0025 y 0.0023

333.9

N = 2888 1733 kN

e 250

M = 2888 0.60 2888 433 kN-m

1000 1000

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Example Description

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

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.

A 230mm

CL

60 mm 550 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

E= 25x106 kN/m2 d = 490 mm fcu = 30 MPa

= 0.2 W = 36.67 kN/m fy = 460 MPa

G= 10416666.7kN/m2

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution described in Example 7.2 on page 149 of Reinforced Concrete

Design by W. H. Mosley, J. H. Bungey & R. Hulse.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

m, steel = 1.15

2

wu = =36.67 kN/m

2

wu l

M u

= 165 kN-m

8

The depth of the compression block is given by:

M

K= 2

= 0.0996 < 0.156

f cu b d

beam.

Then the moment arm is computed as:

K

z = d 0 . 5 0 . 25 0.95d = 427.90 mm

0 .9

M

As = 964.1 sq-mm

f y

1.15 z

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Shear Design

L2

VU U d 92.04 kN at distance, d, from support

2

VU

v = 0.8167 MPa

b d

v v m ax , so no concrete crushing

1 1

0 . 79 k 1 k 2 100 A s 3

400 4

vc = 0.415 MPa

m bd d

and is conservatively taken as 1 .

1 1

f 3

40 3

k2 = cu = 1.06266, 1 k2

25 25

m, concrete = 1.25

100 A s

0.15 3

bd

= 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

A sv v v c b w

sv 0 . 87 f yv

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 0.231 sq-mm/mm

sv 0.87 f yv 0.87 460

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

N = 1971 kN and moment My = 493 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five

25M bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the

result is compared with computed results. The column is designed as a short,

non-sway member.

1971 kN

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent

result.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

700 700

cb dt 490 312 mm

700 f y / s 700 460 / 1.15

N Cc Cs T

where

0.67

Cc f cu ab 0.67 1.5 30 350 a 4667 a

A s 2500

Cs

s

f y

0.4467 f cu

1.15

460 0.4467 30 971, 014 N

Assume compression steel yields (this assumption will be checked later).

As fs 2 5 0 0 fs

T 2 1 7 4 fs fs f y

s 1.15

1 a

N C c 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 4, 667 a 490 971, 014 490 60

465 2

2

N 4917.9 a 5.018 a 897, 926 (Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

N 2 4917.9 327.6 5.018 327.6 897, 926 1, 970, 500 N

490 364

fs 7 0 0 2 4 2 .3 MPa

364

s t f s E s = 0.0012

250

M = N e = 1971 493 kN-m

1000

365 60

s 0.0035 0.00292 y 0.0023

365

N 1971 kN

M 493 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

of 92.222 kN/m. This example is tested using the CSA A23.3-04 concrete design

code. The flexural and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent

results.

A 400mm

CL

54 mm 600 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

E= 25x106 kN/m2 d = 546 mm fc = 40 MPa

= 0.2 W = 92.222 kN/m fy = 400 MPa

G= 10416666.7kN/m2

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution described in Example 2.2 on page 2-12 in Part II on Concrete Design

Handbook of Cement Association of Canada.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

s = 0.85 for reinforcement

0.2 f c

As,min = b h = 758.95 mm2

fy

700

cb = d = 347.45 mm

700 f y

ab = 1cb = 302.285 mm

COMB1

2

wu l

M f

= 415 kN-m

8

2M f

a d

2

d = 102.048 mm

1 f 'c c b

M f

As = 2466 mm2

a

s f y d

2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

4 4

As ,m in m in As ,m in , As , required m in 758.95, 2466 758.95 m m

2

3 3

Shear Design

The basic shear strength for rectangular section is computed as,

c = 0.65 for shear

0.72h = 432 mm or 0.9d = 491.4 mm (governing).

Vf

= 92.222 (3 - 0.546) = 226.31 kN

Vc c f c b w d v = 145.45 kN

Av V f

V c tan

= 0.339 mm2/mm

s s f yt d v

'

Av fc

0.06 b = 0.379 mm2/mm (Govern)

s m in fy

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

= 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

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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 = C c C s T

where

C c = c 1 f c ab = 0.65 0.805 30 350 a = 5494.1 a

'

C s = s As

'

f y

'

- 0.805 f c = 0.85 2500 460 - 0.805 30 = 926,181 N

Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).

T = s As f s = 0.85 2500 f s 2125 f s f s < f y

Pr = 5, 494.1a + 926,181 - 2125 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a '

Pr = '

e

Cc d - Cs d - d

2

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 = 5789.5 a - 5.91a + 856, 468.5 (Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

Pr = 5789.5 317.7 - 5.91 317.7 + 856, 468.5 = 2, 099, 32 7.8 N

2

490 - 355

fs = 7 0 0 = 2 6 6 .2 MPa

355

s = t f s E s = 0.0013

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 = 2 1 0 0 525 kN-m

1000

355 - 60

s = 0.0035 = 0.00291 > y 0.0023

'

355

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

Pr = 2098 kN

M r = 525 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

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.

A 230mm

CL

60 mm 550 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

E= 25x106 kN/m2 d = 490 mm fck = 30 MPa

= 0.2 b = 230 mm fyk = 460 MPa

G= 10416666.7kN/m2

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution.

Country c s cc k1 k2 k3 k4

CEN Default, Slovenia, Sweden, Portugal 1.5 1.15 1.0 0.44 1.25 0.54 1.25

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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, 165 165 916 916 110 110 249.4 249.4 0.00%

Slovenia,

Sweden, Portugal

Norway 165 165 933 933 110 110 249.4 249.4 0.00%

Singapore 165 165 933 933 110 110 249.4 249.4 0.00%

Finland 165 165 933 933 110 110 249.4 249.4 0.00%

Denmark 165 165 950 950 110 110 249.4 249.4 0.00%

Germany 165 165 933 933 110 110 249.4 249.4 0.00%

Poland 165 165 925 925 110 110 249.4 249.4 0.00%

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for both of the load combinations:

m, steel = 1.15

m, concrete = 1.50

cc 1.0

f cd cc f ck / c = 1.0(30)/1.5 = 20 MPa

f ctm

A s , min 0 . 26 bd = 184.5 sq-mm,

f yk

2/3

= 0.3(30)2/3 = 2.896 N/sq-mm

COMB1

wu = 36.67 kN/m

2

wu l

M = 36.67 62/8 = 165.0 kN-m

8

The limiting value of the ratio of the neutral axis depth at the ultimate limit state

to the effective depth, x / d lim , is given as,

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

x k1

for fck 50 MPa ,

d lim k2

where 1 , assuming no moment redistribution

x k1 1 0.44

0.448

d lim k2 1.25

x x

m lim 1 = 0.29417

d lim 2 d lim

x

lim 1 1 2 m lim = 0.3584

d lim

165 10

6

M

m = =0.1494 < m lim so a singly reinforced

bd f cd 230 490 1.0 20

2 2

=1 1 2m = 0.16263 lim

As cd = 0.1626 =916 sq-mm

f yd 400

Shear Design

The shear force demand is given as,

V Ed L / 2 110.0 kN

The shear force that can be carried without requiring design shear reinforcement,

V R d , c C R d , c k 100 1 f ck k 1 cp b w d

1/ 3

1/ 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

V R d , c v m in k1 cp bd = 0.4022 0.0 230 490 45.3 kN

where,

200

k 1 2.0 = 1.6389

d

AS 0

1 0.0 0.02

bd 230 490

As = 0 for l 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

cp 0.0

Ac

C R d , c 0 .1 8 / c =0.12

v m in 0.035 k 0.4022

3/ 2 1/ 2

fck

The maximum design shear force that can be carried without crushing of the

notional concrete compressive struts,

V Rd ,m ax cw bzv1 f cd / cot tan

where,

cw 1.0

z 0.9 d 441.0 mm

f

v1 0 .6 1 ck 0 .5 2 8

250

1 v Ed

0.5 sin 5.33

0.2 f ck 1 f ck / 250

where,

V Ed

v Ed 0.9761

bw d

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The required shear reinforcing is,

Asw V Ed 110.0 1e 6

249.4 sq-mm/m

s zf yw d cot 460

441 2.5

1.15

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

N = 2374 kN and moment My = 593 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five

25 bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the result

is compared with computed results. The column is designed as a short, non-sway

member.

2374 kN

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

fck = 30 MPa fy = 460 MPa

b = 350 mm d = 490 mm

1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This

assumption will be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a

balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

700 700

cb = dt = 490 = 312 mm

700 + f y / s 700 + 460 / 1.15

N Cc Cs T

where

f ck 30

C c cc a b 1 .0 350a 7000a

c 1 .5

A s f ck 2500 30

Cs f y cc 460 1.0 956, 521.7 N

s c 1.15 1.5

As fs 2 5 0 0 fs

T 2 1 7 4 fs fs f y

s 1.15

N 1 7, 000 a 956, 521.7 2174 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a

N2 C c 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

N2 7, 000 a 490 956, 521.7 490 60

465 2

2

N 2 = 7376.3 a - 7.527a + 884, 525.5 (Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

a 0.8 356 284.8 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

N 2 7376.3 284.8 7.527 284.8 884, 525.5 2, 374,173 N

490 356

fs 7 0 0 2 6 3 .4 MPa

356

s t f s E s = 0.00114

N 1 7, 000 284.8 956, 522 2174 263.5 2, 377, 273 N

250

M N e 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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

This example is tested using the HK CP 2004 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

= 0.2 w = 36.67 kN/m fy = 460 MPa

G= 10416666.7kN/m2

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

CONCLUSION

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution based on section 6.1 of Hong Kong Code of Practice for Structural

Use of Concrete 2004.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

m, steel = 1.15

A s ,m in 0.0013bh

= 164.5 sq-mm

wu = =36.67 kN/m

2

wu l

M u

= 165 kN-m

8

The depth of the compression block is given by:

M

K= 2

= 0.0996 < 0.156

f cu b d

beam.

Then the moment arm is computed as:

K

z = d 0 . 5 0 . 25 0.95d = 427.900 mm

0 .9

M

As = 964 sq-mm

f y

1.15 z

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Shear Design

Vu = =92.04 kN at a distance, d, from support

V

v = 0.8167 MPa

bd

1 1

0 . 79 k 1 k 2 100 A s 3

400 4

vc = 0.4150 MPa

m bd d

and is conservatively taken as 1 .

1 1

f 3

40 3

k2 = cu = 1.06266, 1 k2

25 25

m, concrete = 1.25

100 A s

0.15 3

bd

= 0.2359 0.15

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

A sv v v c b w

sv 0 . 87 f yv

A sv v v c b w

= 0.231 sq-mm/mm

sv 0 . 87 f yv

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

N = 1971 kN and moment My = 493 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five

25M bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the

result is compared with the computed results. The column is designed as a short,

non-sway member.

1971 kN

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent

result.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

700 700

cb dt 490 312 mm

700 f y / s 700 460 / 1.15

N Cc Cs T

where

0.67

Cc f cu ab 0.67 1.5 30 350 a 4667 a

A s 2500

Cs

s

f y

0.4467 f cu

1.15

460 0.4467 30 971, 014 N

Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).

As fs 2 5 0 0 fs

T 2 1 7 4 fs fs f y

s 1.15

N 1 4, 667 a 971, 014 2174 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a

N C c 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 4, 667 a 490 971, 014 490 60

465 2

2

N 4917.9 a 5.018 a 897, 926 (Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

a 0.9 364 327.6 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

N 2 4917.9 327.6 5.018 327.6 897, 926 1, 970, 500 N

490 364

fs 7 0 0 2 4 2 .3 MPa

364

s t f s E s = 0.0012

N 1 4, 667 327.6 971, 014 2174 242.3 1, 973,163 N

250

M = N e = 1971 493 kN-m

1000

365 60

s 0.0035 0.00292 y 0.0023

365

N = 1971 kN

M = 493 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

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

code. The flexural and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent

results.

A 300mm

CL

37.5 mm 600 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

E= 19.365x106 kN/m2 d = 562.5 mm fck = 15 MPa

= 0.2 w = 37.778 kN/m fy = 415 MPa

G= 8068715.3kN/m2

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

m, steel = 1.15

m, concrete = 1.50

= 0.36

= 0.42

0.85

As ,m in bd = 345.63 sq-mm

fy

COMB1

Mu = 170 kN-m

Vu = 113.33 kN-m

0 . 53 if f y 250 M P a

0 . 53 0 . 05 f y 250 if 250 f y 415 M P a

x u ,m ax 165

d 0 . 48 0 . 02 y 415

f

if 415 f y 500 M P a

85

0 . 46 if f y 500 M P a

Xu , max

= 0.48

d

Mu

m = 0.33166

b w d f ck

2

x u , max x u , max

Mw,single = fckbwd2 1 = 196.436 kN-m > Mu

d d

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 0.3983

xu 1 1 4 m

d 2

x

z d 1 u = 562 . 51 0 . 42 0 . 3983 = 468.406

d

Mu

As = 1006 sq-mm

f z

y s

Shear Design

Vu

v = = 0.67161

bd

k = 1.0

1 if Pu 0 , U nder T ension

100 A s

0.15 3

bd

100 As

0.596

bd

cd = kc = 0.49

The required shear reinforcement is calculated as follows:

Since v > cd

A sv 0.4 b v cd b 0.4 300 0.67161 0.49 300

m ax , m ax ,

s f y f y y 415 415

2

Asv mm

m ax 0.333, 0.150 0.333

s mm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

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

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results. The larger variation is due to equivalent rectangular compression block

assumption.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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

N = Cc Cs T

where

0.36

Cc = f ck ab = 0.4286 30 350 a = 4500 a

0.84

'

As

f

2500

Cs = - 0.4286 f ck = 460 - 0.4286 30 = 972, 048 N

s

y

1.15

Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).

f < fy

As f s 2500 f s

T = = 2174 f s

s

s

1 .1 5

N 1 = 4500 a + 972, 048 - 2174 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a '

N2 = '

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 = 4500 a 490 - 972, 048 490 - 60

465 2

2

N 2 = 4742 a - 4.839 a + 898, 883 (Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

N 2 = 4742 314.2 - 4.039 314.2 + 898, 883 = 1, 911, 037 N

2

490 - 374

fs = 7 0 0 = 2 1 7 .1 1 MPa

374

s = t f s E s = 0.0011

N 1 = 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 = N e = 1913 478 kN-m

1000

374 - 60

s = 0.0035 = 0.0029 > y 0.0023

'

374

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

N = 1913 kN

M = 478 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

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.

A 230mm

CL

60 mm 550 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

E= 25x106 kN/m2 d = 490 mm fck = 30 MPa

= 0.2 b = 230 mm fyk = 460 MPa

G= 10416666.7kN/m2

Calculation of Flexural reinforcement, As

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

m)

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for both of the load combinations:

c, concrete = 1.50

cc 0.85

f cd cc f ck / c = 0.85(30)/1.5 = 17 MPa

fy 460

f yd = 400 Mpa

s 1.15

f ctm

A s , min 0 . 26 bd = 184.5 sq-mm,

f yk

2/3

= 0.3(30)2/3 = 2.896 N/sq-mm

COMB1

wu = 36.67 kN/m

2

wu l

M = 36.67 62/8 = 165.0 kN-m

8

The limiting value of the ratio of the neutral axis depth at the ultimate limit state

to the effective depth, x / d lim , is given as,

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

x k1

for fck 50 MPa ,

d lim k2

where 1 , assuming no moment redistribution

x k1 1 0.44

0.448

d lim k2 1.25

x x

m lim 1 = 0.29417

d lim 2 d lim

x

lim 1 1 2 m lim = 0.3584

d lim

165 10

6

M

m = =0.1758 < m lim so a singly reinforced beam

230 490 17

2 2

bd f cd

will be adequate.

=1 1 2m = 0.1947 lim

f bd 17 230 490

As cd = 0.1947 =933 sq-mm

f yd 400

Shear Design

The shear force demand is given as,

V Ed L / 2 110.0 kN

The shear force that can be carried without requiring design shear reinforcement,

V R d , c C R d , c k 100 1 f ck k 1 cp b w d

1/ 3

1/ 3

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

V R d , c v m in k1 cp bd = 0.4022 0.0 230 x 490 45.3 kN

where,

200

k 1 2.0 = 1.6389

d

AS 0

1 0.0 0.02

bd 230 490

As = 0 for l 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

cp 0.0

Ac

C R d , c 0 .1 8 / c =0.12

v m in 0.035 k 0.4022

3/ 2 1/ 2

fck

The maximum design shear force that can be carried without crushing of the

notional concrete compressive struts,

cot cot

V R d ,m ax zb c f 'cd 297 kN

2

1 cot

where,

z 0.9 d 441.0 mm

f 'cd 0.5 f cd

0

1 v Ed

0.5 sin 5.33

0.2 f ck 1 f ck / 250

where,

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

V Ed

v Ed 0.9761

bw d

6 2

A sw V Ed 1 110.0 10 mm

249.4

s zf yw d cot cot sin

441

460

2.5

m

1.15

The minimum required shear reinforcing is,

2

Asw mm

1.5 b 1.5 230 345.0 (controls)

s m in m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

= 2174 kN and moment My = 544 kN-m. This column is reinforced with 5-25

bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and computed

result is compared. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

2174 kN

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Design

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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 Cs T

where

f ck 0.85 30

Cc = ab = 350 a = 5950 a

c 1.5

As f ck 2500 0.85 30

'

s c 1.15 1.5

Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).

f < fy

As f s 2500 f s

T = = 2174 f s

s

s

1 .1 5

N 1 = 5, 950 a + 963, 043 - 2174 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a '

N2 = '

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 = 5950 a 490 - 963, 043 490 - 60

465 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2

N 2 = 6270 a - 6.3978a + 890, 556 (Eqn. 2)

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

N 2 = 6270 292 - 6.3978 292 + 890, 556 = 2,175, 893 N

2

490 - 365

fs = 7 0 0 = 2 4 0 .0 MPa

365

s = t f s E s = 0.0012

Which is very close to the calculated N2 of 2,175, 893 (less than 1% difference)

250

M = N e = 2175 544 kN-m

1000

365 - 60

s = 0.0035 = 0.0029 > y 0.0023

'

365

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

N = 2,174 kN

M = 544 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

30 cm

CL A

6.0 cm 49 cm

A

Section A-A

6.0 m

E= 3.37E105 kgf/sq-cm h = 55.0 cm fc = 305.9 kgf/sq-cm

= 0.2 b = 30.0 cm fy = 4690.69 kgf/sq-cm

G= 1.40E105 kgf/sq-cm d = 49.0 cm

8.8x1010416666.7kN/

m 2

Uniform factored load

u = 74.4082 kgf/cm (D+L)

Design moment calculation, Mu.

Design Shear , Vu

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULT COMPARISON

The independent results are hand calculated based on the Korean KCI-99 code.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

= 0.85,

0.80 f 'c 14

As,min = m ax bd , bd = 4.39 sq-cm

fy fy

f c 2 8 0

1 0.85 0.007 0.8319

10

6000

c m ax d 27.50 cm

6000 f y

a m ax 1 c m ax = 22.88 cm

Comb1

u = 74.4082 kgf/cm

2

wu l

M u

= 74.4082 6002/8 = 3,348,400 kgf-cm = 33,484 kgf-m

8

The depth of the compression block is given by:

2M

a d

2 u

d = 11.70 cm (a < amax)

0 . 85 f c b

'

M u 3, 348, 400

As = =

a 0.85 4690.69 49 11.70 / 2

fyd

2

As = 19.46 sq-cm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Shear Design

The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:

= 0.80

The shear demand, Vu , is given as,

V u u ( L / 2) 22, 323 kgf

2

Vc = 0.53 f 'c bd 13, 626 kgf

Given Vu, Vc and Vmax, the required shear reinforcement in area/unit length is

calculated as follows:

If Vu Vc,

Av

= 0,

s

Av Vu V

= ,

s f ys d

Av

0.2 f 'c 3.5

but at least, m ax b, b 0.0224 sq-cm/cm

s fy fy

a failure condition is declared.

Comb1

Vu = 22,323 kgf

Av (V u V c )

= = 0.0621 sq-cm/cm

s f ys d

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

moment My = 505kN-m. This column is reinforced with five 25M bars. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the result is compared

with the calculated result. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

1971 kN

My = 493 kN-m

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

600 600

cb = dt = 490 = 277 mm

600 + f y 600 + 460

N Cc Cs T

where

C c 0.85 f 'c ab 0.85 30 350 a 8925 a

C s A s f y 0.85 f 'c 2500 460 0.85 30 1, 086, 250 N

T A s f s 2500 f s f s f y

N 1 8925 a 1, 086, 250 2500 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a

N C c d C s d d

e 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 215 mm

e e d 250 215 465 mm

1 a

N 8925 a 490 1, 086, 250 490 60

465 2

2

N 2 9405 a 9.5968 a 1, 004, 489 (Eqn. 2)

a = 0.836 335 = 280 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

N 2 9405 280 9.5968 280 1, 004, 489 2, 885, 500 N

490 335

fs 6 0 0 2 7 7 .6 MPa

335

s t f s E s = 0.0014

N 1 8925 280 1, 086, 250 2500 277.6 2, 891, 250 N

250

M N e 2884 721 kN-m

1000

335 60

s 0.003 0.0025 y 0.0023

335

N 2885 2020 kN

M 721 505 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

In the example a simple supported beam is subjected to a uniform factored load

of 6.58 Ton/m (64.528 kN/m). This example was tested using the Mexican

RCDF 2004 concrete design code. The computed moment and shear strengths are

compared with independent hand calculated results.

CL

W Ton/m A b

r

A

L

L=6m

h = 0.65 m

fc = 200 kg/cm2 (19.6133 MPa)

E= 1979899 kg/cm2 r = 0.05 m

= 0.2 fy = 4200 kg/cm2 (411.88 MPa)

b = 0.30 m

G= 824958 kg/cm2 W = 6.58 Ton/m

(64.528 kN/m)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Design moment calculation, M and factored moment resistance, Mu.

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress

distribution described in Example 5.2 on page 92 of Aspectos Fundamentales

del Concreto Reforzado Fourth Edition by scar M. Gonzlez Cuevas and

Francisco Robles Fernndez-Villegas.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results for bending and an acceptable-conservative comparison for shear.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Clear span, L = 6 m

Overall depth, h = 650 mm

Width of beam, b = 300 mm

Effective depth, d = 600 mm

Concrete strength, fc = 19.61 N/ mm2

Yield strength of steel, fy = 411.88 N/ mm2

Concrete unit weight, wc = 0 kN/m3

Modulus of elasticity, Ec = 20.6x103 N/ mm2

Modulus of elasticity, Es = 20.0x104 N/ mm2

Poissons ratio, v = 0.2

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for the load combination:

f 'c 19.61

fc 15.69 MPa

*

1.25 1.25

cEs

cb d = 355.8 mm

c E s f yd

amax = 1 c b = 302.4 mm

f c*

where, 1 1.05 , 0.65 1 0.85

140

0 . 22 f 'c

As ,m in bd 425 . 8 m m

2

fy

COMB1

u = 6.58 ton/cm (64.528kN/m)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

ul

2

8

The depth of the compression block is given by: (RCDF-NTC 2.1, 1.5.1.2)

2 Mu

ad d

2

*

= 154.2 mm

0.85 f c F R b

where FR 0.9

Compression steel not required since a < amax.

Mu 290376000

1498 m m

2

As = =

a 0.9(411.88) 600 154.2 / 2

FR f y d

2

Shear Design

The shear demand is computed as:

V u 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,

V m ax V cR 0.8

*

fc A cv

*

The shear reinforcement is computed as follows:

2

Av 0.1 f c ' mm

b 289 (RCDF-NTC 2.5.2.3, Eqn 2.22)

s m in fy m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2

563

s F R v f ys d 0.8 411.88 600 m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

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

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

600 600

cb dt 490 277 mm

600 f y 600 460

N Cc Cs T

where

*

C c 0.85 f c

ab 0.85 0.8 30 350 a 7140 a

*

c

T A s f s 2500 f s f s f y

N 1 7140 a 1, 099, 000 2500 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a

N C c 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 7140 a 490 1, 099, 000 490 60

465 2

2

N 2 7542 a 7.677 a 1, 016, 280 (Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

a = 1a = 0.836 347 = 290 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

N 2 7542 290 7.677 290 1, 016, 280 2, 557, 824 N

490 347

fs 6 0 0 2 4 7 .3 MPa

347

s t f s E s = 0.0012

N 1 7140 290 1, 099, 000 2500 247.3 2, 551, 350 N

250

M N e 2552 638 kN-m

1000

347 - 60

s = 0.003 = 0.0025 > y 0.0023

'

347

N = FR 2551 1794 kN

M = FR 638 448 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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. The load

level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions:

compression reinforcement be provided as permitted by NZS 3101-06.

The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress

allowed by NZS 3101-06, requiring design shear reinforcement.

The beam is shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite

element mesh of frame elements, automatically generated. The maximum

element size has been specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by joint

restraints that have no rotational stiffness. One end of the beam has no

longitudinal stiffness.

The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case

(DL50) and one live load case (LL130) with only symmetric third-point loads of

magnitudes 50, and 130 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load

combination (COMB130) is defined using the NZS 3101-06 load combination

factors of 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for

both of those load cases and the load combinations.

shows the comparison of the design shear reinforcements.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Clear span, L = 6000 mm

Overall depth, h = 560 mm

Width of beam, b = 300 mm

Effective depth, d = 500 mm

Depth of comp. reinf., d' = 60 mm

Concrete strength, fc = 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 = 2x105 MPa

Poissons ratio, v = 0.2

Dead load, Pd = 50 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

with the moments obtained using the analytical method. They match exactly for

this problem. Table 1 also shows the comparison of design reinforcements.

Moment

Method (kN-m) As+ As-

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Av

Reinforcement Area,

s

(sq-mm/m)

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for the load combination:

b = 0.85

1 0.85 for f c 55M P a

c

cb d = 283.02 mm

c f y Es

Ac b d 150, 000 m m

2

f c

Ac 446 . 5

4 fy

A s ,m in m ax 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

2 M

ad d '

= 194.82 mm ; a > a m ax

1 fc b b f

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

C 1 f c ba m ax 1 , 380 . 2 kN

The resisting moment by the concrete compression and tension reinforcement is:

* a

M c C d m ax b = 480.8 kN-m

2

reinforcement is:

M M c 29.2 kN m

* * *

M s

*

M

A s 193 m m

s 2

, where

f s 1 f 'c d d b

a m ax

c b , m ax 0.75 c b 0.75 283.02 212.26 m m

1

c b ,m ax d '

f s c ,m ax E s fy ;

c b ,m ax

212.26 60

f s 0.003 200, 000 430 M P a f y 460 M P a

212.26

f s 430 M P a

The required tension reinforcing for balancing the compression in the concrete is:

*

Mc

As 1 3, 001 m m

2

a

f y d m ax b

2

And the tension required for balancing the compression reinforcement is given

by:

*

Ms

As 2 169.9 m m

2

f y d d ' b

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

2

Shear Design

The nominal shear strength provided by concrete is computed as:

V C v C AC V , where

v C k d k a v b , and

k a = 1.0 (Program default)

A

v b 0.07 10 s f 'C , except v b is neither less than

bd

v C 0.4382

vmax = min 0.2 f c , 8 M Pa = min{6, 8} = 6 MPa

For this example, the nominal shear strength provided by concrete is:

VC v C AC V 0.4382 300 500 65.727 kN

*

V

v 1.7 M P a v m ax ,

*

so there is no concrete crushing.

bw d

s = 0.75

*

V 255

VS VC = 65.727 = 274.3 kN

S 0.75

Since h 560 m m m ax 300 m m , 0.5 b w 0.5 300 150 m m

sc = 0.328 MPa

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Av VS 274.27 1E 6

1192.5 m m

2

s f yt d 460 500

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

= 2445 kN and moment My = 611 kN-m. This column is reinforced with 5 T25

bars. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and computed

result is compared. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

2445 kN

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Tied Reinforced Concrete Column Design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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:

600 600

cb = dt = 490 = 277 mm

600 + f y 600 + 460

= Cc Cs T

*

N

where

C c = 0.85 f c ab = 0.85 30 350 a = 8925 a

'

C s = As

'

f y

'

- 0.85 f c = 2500 460 - 0.85 30 = 1, 086, 250 N

Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).

T = As f s = 2500 f s f s < f y

*

N = 8, 925 a + 1, 086, 250 - 2500 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a '

N =

*

'

e

Cc d - Cs d - d

2

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 215 mm

' "

e = e + d = 250 + 215 = 465 mm

1 a

8, 925 a 490 - 1, 086, 250 490 - 60

*

N =

465 2

* 2

N = 9, 404.8 a - 9.6 a + 1, 004, 489.2 (Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

N = 9, 404.8 280.5 - 9.6 280.5 + 1, 004, 489.2 = 2, 887, 205.2 N

* 2

490 - 330

fs = 6 0 0 = 2 9 0 .9 MPa

330

s = t f s E s = 0.00145

N 2 = 8, 925 280.5 + 1, 086, 250 - 2500 290.9 2, 862, 462 .5 N

*

Which is very close to the calculated Pr1 of 2,887,205.2 (less than 1% difference)

250

719

* *

M = N e = 2877 kN-m

1000

330 - 60

s = 0.003 = 0.00245 > y 0.0023

'

330

Compression steels yields, as assumed.

*

*

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed flexural results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:

m, steel = 1.15

As , m in 0.0013 bh , where b=300mm, h=600mm

= 234.00 sq-mm

wu = =65.4 kN/m

2

wu l

M u

= 294.3 kN-m

8

wu l

Vu wu d = 160.23 kN

2

M

K= 2

= 0.108 < 0.156

f cu b d

beam.

Then the moment arm is computed as:

K

z = d 0 . 5 0 . 25 0.95d = 473.221 mm, where d=550 mm

0 .9

M

As = 1555 sq-mm

f y

1.15 z

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Shear Design

Vu = =160.23 kN at distance, d, from support

V

v = 0.9711 MPa

bw d

1 1

0 . 84 k 1 k 2 100 A s 3

400 4

vc = 0.4418 MPa

m bd d

and is conservatively taken as 1 .

1 1

f 3

80 3

k2 = cu = 1.0, 1 k2

30 30

m = 1.25

100 A s

0.15 3

bd

= 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 v c bw 0.9711 0.4418

= 0.730 sq-mm/mm

sv 0.87 f yv 0.87 250

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

and moment My = 493 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five 25M bars. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the result is compared

with the calculated result. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

1971 kN

My = 493 kN-m

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 490 mm fy = 460 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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:

Position of neutral axis at balanced condition:

700 700

cb dt 490 296 mm

700 f y 700 460

N Cc Cs T

where

0.67

Cc f cu ab 0.67 1.5 30 350 a 4667 a

A s 2500

Cs

s

f y

0.4467 f cu

1.15

460 0.4467 30 971, 014 N

Assume compression steel yields (this assumption will be checked later).

As fs 2 5 0 0 fs

T 2 1 7 4 fs fs f y

s 1.15

N 1 4, 667 a 971, 014 2174 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a

N C c 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 4, 667 a 490 971, 014 490 60

465 2

2

N 4917.9 a 5.018 a 897, 926 (Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

a = 0.9 364 = 327.6 mm

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

2

N 2 4917.9 327.6 5.018 327.6 897, 926 1, 970, 500 N

490 364

fs 7 0 0 2 4 2 .3 MPa

364

s t f s E s = 0.0012

N 1 4, 667 327.6 971, 014 2174 242.3 1, 973,163 N

250

M = N e = 1971 493 kN-m

1000

364 60

s 0.0035 0.0029 y 0.0023

364

N = 1971 kN

M = 493 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Shear and Flexural Reinforcement Design of a Singly Reinforced Rectangle

The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this

example.

This example is tested using the Turkish TS 500-2000 concrete design code. The

flexural and shear reinforcing computed is compared with independent results.

A 230mm

CL

60 mm 550 mm

A

Section A-A

6m

E= 25.000x106 kN/m2 d = 543.75 mm fck = 30 MPa

= 0.2 fy = 420 MPa

Overall depth, h = 550 mm

Width of beam, b = 230 mm

Effective depth, d = 490 mm

Concrete strength, fck = 30 MPa

Yield strength of steel, fyk = 420 MPa

Concrete unit weight, wc = 0 kN/m3

Modulus of elasticity, Ec = 25x103 MPa

Modulus of elasticity, Es = 2x105 MPa

Poissons ratio, v = 0.2

-1

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Calculation of flexural and shear reinforcement

Application of minimum flexural and shear reinforcement

RESULTS COMPARISON

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

Flexural Design

The following quantities are computed for the load combination:

f ck 30

f cd 20

mc 1.5

f yk 420

f yd 365

ms 1.15

cu E s

cb d = 304.6 mm

cu E s f yd

where, k1 0.85 0.006 f ck 25 0.82 , 0.70 k1 0.85

0 . 8 f ctd

As ,m in bd 315 . 5 m m

2

f yd

0.35 f cu 0.35 30

Where f ctd 1.278

mc 1.5

COMB1

d = 36.67 kN/m

d L

2

8

The depth of the compression block is given by:

2

2 Md

ad d = 95.42 mm

0.85 f cd b

Md 165 E 6

As = =

a 365 490 95 .41 / 2

f yd d

2

As = 1022 mm2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Shear Design

The shear demand is computed as:

L

Vd =110.0 kN at face of support for this example

2

The shear force is limited to a maximum of,

V max 0.22 f cd A w 496 kN

N d

V cr 0.65 f ctd bd 1 =93.6 kN, where N d 0

Ag

Vc 0.8Vcr 74.9 kN

If V d Vcr

2

Asw f mm

0.3 ctd b 0.2415 (min. controls) (TS 8.1.5, Eqn 8.6)

s m in f yw d mm

If Vcr V d V m ax

Asw V d Vc mm

2

s f yw d d mm

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR COMPRESSION-CONTROLLED RECTANGULAR COLUMN

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

and moment My = 477 kN-m. This column is reinforced with five 25M bars. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the result is compared

with the computed result. The column is designed as a short, non-sway member.

1908 kN

My = 477 kN-m

550mm

A A 60 mm 350mm

3m

Section A-A

= 0.2 d = 550 mm fyk = 420 MPa

G = 10416666.7kN/m2

Tied reinforced concrete column design

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared.

Percent

Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The computed result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent

result.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

assumption will be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a

balanced condition, cb:

Position of neutral axis at balance condition:

0.003 2x10

5

600

cb = dt = 490 = 305 mm

0.003 2x10 + f yk

5

600 + 420 / 1.15

N = Cc Cs T

where

C c = 0.85 f ck ab = 0.85 25 / 1.5 350 a = 4, 958 a

A s f ck 2500

Cs f yk 0.85 420 0.85 25 / 1.5 882, 246 N

s c 1.15

Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).

As f s 2500 f s

T =

s

=

1.15

2174 f s f s

< fy

N 1 4, 958 a 882, 246 2,174 f s (Eqn. 1)

1 a

N C c 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 4, 958 a 490 882, 246 490 60

465 2

2

N 2 5525 a 5.3312 a 815, 840 (Eqn. 2)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Substitute in Eqn. 2:

N 2 5525 304.6 5.3312 304.6 815, 840 1, 907, 643 N

2

490 358.3

fs 600 220.2 > 420 MPa

358.3

s = t f s E s = 0.0011

N 1 4, 958 304.6 882, 246 2174 220.2 1, 907, 601 N

250

M = N e = 1908 477 kN-m

1000

358 60

s 0.003 0.0025 y 0.0021

358

Compression steel yields, as assumed.

N = 1908 kN

M = 477 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR WALL

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

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 2013 program results.

= 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)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

taken from the ETABS 2013 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 fcab 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

1 a

Pn 2 Cc d Cs1 d d Cs 2 3s Cs 3 2s Ts 4 s (Eqn. 2)

e 2

where Cs1 A1 f s1 0.85 f c ; 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.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

s1 0.003 = 0.0028; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

c

c s d

s 2 0.003 = 0.0014 f s 2 = 40.75 ksi

c

d c 2s

s3 s5 = 0.0000 f s 3 = 00.29 ksi

d c

d cs

s 4 s5 = 0.0014 f s 4 = 40.20 ksi

d c

d c

s5 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

t = 0.00244 , y = 0.0021

0.005 t

for y t 0.005 ; t c 0.712

0.005 y

7) Calculate ,

M n = 0.711 2115 1504 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is

loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 2384 k and moments Mu3 = 9293k-ft. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are compared

with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

were taken from the ETABS 2013 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

C c = C cw + C cf , where C cw and C cf 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)

3) Taking moments about As6:

a tf

1 Ccf d - d Ccw d t f Cs1 d d

Pn2 2 (Eqn. 2)

e

Cs 2 4s Cs3 3s Ts 4 2s Ts5 s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

where Cs1 A1 fs1 0.85 fc , 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

inches.

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 44.58 inches, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain,

then f s f y :

cd '

s1 0.003 = 0.00273; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

c

csd '

s 2 0.003 = 0.00152 fs2 = 44.07 ksi

c

c 2s d '

s3 0.003 = 0.00310 fs3 = 8.94 ksi

c

d c 2s

s 4 s6 = 0.00090 fs4 = 26.2 ksi

d c

d cs

s5 s6 = 0.00211 fs5 = 60.00 ksi

d c

d c

s6 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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

t = 0.00332 , y = 0.0021

0.005 t

for y t 0.005 ; t c 0.757

0.005 y

M n = 0.757 12, 273 9293 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example.

moments Muy = 1,504 k-ft. This wall is reinforced with two #9 bars at each end

and #4 bars at 14.00 inches on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 5.20 in2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and results are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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)

Concrete wall flexural Demand/Capacity ratio

RESULTS COMPARISON

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

taken from the ETABS 2013 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 fcab 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

1 a

Pn 2 Cc d Cs1 d d Cs 2 3s Cs 3 2s Ts 4 s (Eqn. 2)

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

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c= 30.1 inch, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs f y :

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

cd '

s1 0.003 = 0.0028; f s s E Fy ; f s1 60.00 ksi

c

csd '

s 2 0.003 = 0.0014 f s 2 = 40.75 ksi

c

d c 2s

s3 s5 = 0.0000 f s 3 = 00.29 ksi

d c

d cs

s 4 s5 = 0.0014 f s 4 = 40.20 ksi

d c

d c

s5 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

t = 0.00244 , y = 0.0021

0.005 t

for y t 0.005 ; t c 0.712

0.005 y

7) Calculate ,

M n = 0.711 2115 1504 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is

loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 2384 k and moments Mu3 = 9293k-ft. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are compared

with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

were taken from the ETABS 2013 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

C c = C cw + C cf , where C cw and C c f 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

(Eqn. 1)

A2 fs 2 0.85 fc A3 fs 3 0.85 fc As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6

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

where Cs1 A1 fs1 0.85 fc , Csn An f sn 0.85 f c , Tsn f sn Asn , and the bar

strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section, d

98 8

= 45 inches

2

e e d 46.78 45 91.78 inches

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

inches.

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 44.58 inches, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain

then, f s f y :

cd '

s1 0.003 = 0.00273; f s s E Fy ; f s1 60.00 ksi

c

csd '

s2 0.003 = 0.00152 f s 2 = 44.07 ksi

c

c 2s d '

s3 0.003 = 0.00310 f s 3 = 8.94 ksi

c

d c 2s

s4 s6 = 0.00090 f s 4 = 26.2 ksi

d c

d cs

s5 s6 = 0.00211 f s 5 = 60.00 ksi

d c

d c

s6 0.003 = 0.00333 f s 6 = 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

t = 0.00332 , y = 0.0021

0.005 t

for y t 0.005 ; t c 0.757

0.005 y

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

M n = 0.757 12, 273 9, 293 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example. A reinforced masonry wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 556

k and moments Muy = 1331 k-ft. This wall is reinforced with two #9 bars at each

end and #4 bars at 14.00 inches on center each of face module (The reinforcing is

not aligned with the conventional masonry block spacing for calculation

convenience. The same excel spreadsheet used in other concrete examples was

used here). The total area of reinforcement is 5.20 in2. The design capacity ratio

is checked by hand calculations and the results are compared with ETABS 2013

program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

were taken from the ETABS 2013 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 1 fm ab 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

are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d = 28

inch

e e d 28.722 28 56.72 inch.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0025 and c= 32.04 inch, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs f y :

cd '

s1 0.0025 = 0.00207; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

c

csd '

s 2 0.0025 = 0.00125 f s 2 = 36.30 ksi

c

c 2s d '

s3 0.0025 = 0.00016 f s 3 = 4.62 ksi

c

d cs

s 4 0.0025 = 0.00093 f s 4 = 27.10 ksi

c

d c

s5 0.0025 = 0.00203 f s 5 = 58.70 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 = 618 k;

Pn2 = 618 k

6) Calculate ,

M n = 0.9 1479 1331 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is

loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 1496 k and moments Mu3 = 7387 k-ft. The

design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results are

compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

were taken from the ETABS 2013 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

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

Pn2 2 (Eqn. 2)

e

Cs3 3s Ts 4 2s Ts5 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

are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d = 45

inch

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

inches.

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0025 and c = 41.15 inches, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain,

then f s f y :

cd '

s1 0.0025 = 0.00226; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi

c

csd '

s2 0.0025 = 0.00116 f s 2 = 33.74 ksi

c

c 2s d '

s3 0.0025 = 0.00007 f s 3 = 2.03 ksi

c

d c 2s

s4 s6 = 0.00102 f s 4 = 29.7 ksi

d c

d cs

s5 s6 = 0.00212 f s 5 = 60.00 ksi

d c

d c

s6 0.0025 = 0.00321 f s 6 = 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 = 1662 k

Pn2 = 1662 k

M n = 0.9 8208 7387 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

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 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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.

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

taken from the ETABS 2013 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

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

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 30 inch, the steel stresses and

strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then f s f y :

cd '

s1 0.003 = 0.0028; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.00 ksi

c

csd '

s 2 0.003 = 0.0015 f s 2 = 307.9 ksi

c

d c 2 s

s3 s5 = 0.0003 f s 3 = 52.3 ksi

d c

d cs

s 4 s5 = 0.0010 f s 4 = 203.2 ksi

d c

d c

s5 0.003 = 0.0023 f s 5 = 458.8 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 = 5289 kN

Pn2 = 5289 kN

6) Calculate ,

M n = 0.65 3081 2003 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

11175 kN and moments Muy = 12564 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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)

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF ETABS 2013 TESTED

Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent

result.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

taken from the ETABS 2013 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

C c = C cw + C cf , where C cw and C c f are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

Ccw 0.85 fc 200 a 200

Ccf 0.85 fc 200 2500

Cs A1 fs1 0.85 fc A2 fs 2 0.85 fc A3 fs 3 0.85 fc

T As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6

Pn1 0.85 fc 8 a 8 0.85 fc 8 98 A1 fs1 0.85 fc

(Eqn. 1)

A2 fs 2 0.85 fc A3 fs 3 0.85 fc As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6

a tf

1 Ccf d d ' Ccw d t f Cs1 d d

Pn2 2 (Eqn. 2)

e

Cs 2 4s Cs3 3s Ts 4 2s Ts5 s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 1341.6 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs f y :

c d

s1 0.003 = 0.00278; fs s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

c

c s d

s 2 0.003 = 0.00199 f s 2 = 398.7 MPa

c

c 2s d

s3 0.003 = 0.00121 f s 3 = 242.2 MPa

c

d c 2s

s 4 s 6 = 0.00080 f s 4 = 160.3 MPa

d c

d cs

s5 s 6 = 0.00158 f s 5 = 16.8 MPa

d c

d c

s 6 0.003 = 0.00237 f s 6 = 460.0 MPa

c

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give,

Pn1 = 17192 kN

Pn2 = 17192 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

6) Calculate ,

Pn 0.65 17192 11175 kN

M n 0.65 19329 12564 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

moments Muy = 1969 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS 2013 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.

700 700

cb dt 1450 922.7 mm

700 f y / s 700 460 /1.15

Pn = Cc Cs T

where

0.67 0.67

Cc fcu ab 30 300a 4020a

m 1.5

As1 0.67 As2 0.67 As3 0.67

Cs f s1 fc fs 2 fc fs 3 fc

s m s m s m

A A

T s 4 fs 4 s 5 fs 5

s s

As1 0.67 As2 0.67

Pn1 4709a f s1 fc fs 2 fc

s m s m

(Eqn. 1)

As3 0.67 As 4 A

fs 3 fc fs 4 s 5 fs 5

s m s s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 A 0.67 A 0.67

where Cs1 f s1 f c ; Cs 2 s 2 f s 2 f c ; Cs 3 s 3 f s 3 f c ;

s m s m s m

A 0.67

Ts 4 s 4 f s 4 f c and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.

s m

e e d 606.5 700 1306.5 mm.

a 1c 0.9 875.2 787.7 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 643.6 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs f y :

cd '

s1 0.003 = 0.00330; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

c

csd '

s 2 0.003 = 0.00190 f s 2 = 380.1 MPa

c

d c 2s

s3 s5 = 0.00050 f s 3 = 100.1 MPa

d c

d cs

s 4 s5 = 0.00090 f s 4 = 179.8 MPa

d c

d c

s5 0.003 = 0.00230 f s 5 = 459.7 MPa

c

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 3246 kN

Pn2 = 3246 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

8368 kN and moments Muy = 11967 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

taken from the ETABS 2013 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

C c = C cw + C cf , where C cw and C c f are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

0.67

Ccw fcu 200 a 200

m

0.67

Ccf fcu 200 2500

m

As1 0.67 As2 0.67 As3 0.67

Cs f s1 fc fs 2 fc fs 3 fc

s m s m s m

A A A

T = s4 f s4 s5 f s5 s6 f s6

s s s

0.67 0.67 A 0.67

Pn1 fcu 200 a 200 fcu 200 2500 s1 fs1 fc

m m s m

(Eqn. 1)

As2 0.67 As3 0.67 As 4 As 5 As 6

fs 2 fc fs 3 fc fs 4 fs 5 fs 6

s m s m s s s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

a tf

1 Ccf d d Ccw d tf Cs1 d d Cs 2 4s

Pn 2 2 (Eqn. 2)

e

Cs 3 3s Ts 4 2s Ts 5 s

where Cs1 f s1 f c ; Csn sn f sn f c ; Tsn sn f sn f c

s m s m s m

and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 1160 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs f y :

cd '

s1 0.0035 = 0.00320; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

c

csd '

s 2 0.0035 = 0.00181 f s 2 = 362.0 MPa

c

c 2s d '

s3 0.0035 = 0.00042 f s 3 = 84.4 MPa

c

d c 2s

s 4 s6 = 0.00097 f s 4 = 193.2 MPa

d c

d cs

s5 s6 = 0.00235 f s 5 = 460.00 MPa

d c

d c

s6 0.0035 = 0.00374 f s 6 = 460.00 MPa

c

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 8368 kN

Pn2 = 8368 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

and moments Muy = 2109 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at

each end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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.

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS 2013 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.

700 700

cb dt 1450 875 mm

700 f y 700 460

Pn = Cc Cs T

where

Cs s As1 fs1 1 fc s As2 fs 2 1 fc' s As3 fs 3 1 fc

T s As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5

1 a

Pn 2 Cc d Cs1 d d Cs 2 d d s Cs 3 2s Ts 4 s (Eqn. 2)

e 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

Ts 4 s f s 4 As 4 and the bar strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the

center of the section and d = 700 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 643.6 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs f y :

cd '

s1 0.003 = 0.00330; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

c

csd '

s 2 0.003 = 0.00193 f s 2 = 387.0 MPa

c

d c 2s

s3 s5 = 0.00057 f s 3 = 113.1 MPa

d c

d cs

s 4 s5 = 0.00080 f s 4 = 160.8 MPa

d c

d c

s5 0.0035 = 0.00217 f s 5 = 434.7 MPa

c

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 3870 kN

Pn2 = 3870 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

10687 kN and moments Muy = 13159 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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.

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS 2013 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

C c = C cw + C cf , where C cw and C c f are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

Ccw = c 1 f c200 a - 200

Ccf = c 1 f c 2002500

Cs s As1 fs1 1c fc s As2 fs 2 1c fc s As3 fs 3 1c fc

T s As 4 fs 4 s As 5 fs 5 s As 6 fs 6

s As2 fs 2 1c fc s As3 fs 3 1c fc s As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6

(Eqn. 1)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 s As1 fs1 1c fc ; Csn s Asn fsn 1c fc ; Ts 4 s fsn Asn and the bar

strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and

d = 700 mm

e e d 1231.3 1050 2381.3 inch.

a 1c 0.895 1293.6 1157.8 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0030 and c = 1293.6 mm, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain,

then f s f y :

c d

s1 0.0035 = 0.00323; fs s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

c

c s d

s 2 0.0035 = 0.00198 f s 2 = 397.0 MPa

c

c 2s d

s3 0.0035 = 0.00074 f s 3 = 148.1 MPa

c

d c 2s

s 4 s 6 = 0.00175 f s 4 = 100.9 MPa

d c

d cs

s5 s 6 = 0.00299 f s 5 = 349.8 MPa

d c

d c

s5 0.0035 = 0.00230 f s 6 = 460.0 MPa

c

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 10687 kN

Pn2 = 10687 kN

M n Pn e 10687(1231.3) /1000000 = 13159 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

moments Muy = 2503 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS 2013 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.

700 700

cb dt 1450 922.7 mm

700 f y / s 700 460 /1.15

Pn Cc Cs T

where

f 1.0 30

Cc cc ck ab 300a 6000a

m 1.5

As1 cc fck As 2 cc fck As 3 cc fck

Cs f s1 fs 2 fs 3

s m s m s m

A A

T s 4 fs 4 s 5 fs 5

s s

As1 cc fck As 2 cc fck

Pn1 6000a f s1 fs 2

s m s m

(Eqn. 1)

As 3 cc fck As 4 A

fs 3 fs 4 s 5 f s 5

s m s s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 cc fck As 2 cc f ck As 3 cc f ck

where Cs1 f s1 ; Cs 2 fs2 ; Cs 3 fs3 ;

s m s m s m

As 4

Ts 4 f s 4 and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.

s

e e d 576.73 700 1276.73 mm.

a = 1c = 0.80 885.33=708.3 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 885.33 mm, the steel

stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain,

then f s f y :

c d

s1 0.0035 = 0.00330; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

c

c s d

s 2 0.0035 = 0.00192 f s 2 = 383.7 MPa

c

d c 2s

s3 s 5 = 0.00054 f s 3 = 107.0 MPa

d c

d cs

s 4 s5 = 0.00085 f s 4 = 169.7 MPa

d c

d c

s5 0.0035 = 0.00223 f s 5 = 446.5 MPa

c

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 4340 kN

Pn2 = 4340 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu =

11605 kN and moments Muy = 15342 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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 flexural demand/capacity ratio

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

taken from the ETABS 2013 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

C c = C cw + C cf , where C cw and C c f are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

f 0.85 30

Ccw cc ck 200 a 200 200 a 200 3400(a 200)

m 1.5

f 0.85(30)

Ccf cc ck 200 2500 1000 200 2500 1000 5,100, 000

m 1.5

f f cc fck

Cs A1 fs1 cc ck A2 fs 2 cc ck A3 fs 3

m m m

f f f

T As 4 s 4 As 5 s 4 As 6 s 4

s s s

As1 cc fck As 2 cc fck

Pn1 3400( a 200) 5,100, 000 f s1 fs 2

s m s m

As 3 cc fck As 4 A A

fs 3 fs 4 s 5 fs 5 s 6 fs 6

s m s s s

(Eqn. 1)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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 cc f ck As 2 cc f ck As 3 cc f ck

where Cs1 f s1 ; Cs 2 fs2 ; Cs 3 fs3 ;

s m s m s m

As 4

Ts 4 f s 4 and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.

s

e e d 1322 700 2472 mm.

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 1299 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs f y :

c d

s1 0.0035 = 0.00323; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

c

c s d

s 2 0.0035 = 0.00199 f s 2 = 398.2 MPa

c

c 2s d

s3 0.0035 = 0.00075 f s 3 = 150.3 MPa

c

d c 2s

s 4 s6 = 0.00049 f s 4 = 97.5 MPa

d c

d cs

s5 s6 = 0.00173 f s 5 = 345.4 MPa

d c

d c

s6 0.0035 = 0.00297 f s 6 = 460.00 MPa

c

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 11605 kN

Pn2 = 11605 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

moments Muy = 1969 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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.

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS 2013 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.

700 700

cb dt 1450 922.7 mm

700 f y / s 700 460 /1.15

Pn = Cc Cs T

where

0.67 0.67

Cc = f cu ab = 30 300a = 4020a

m 1.5

As1 0.67 As2 0.67 As3 0.67

Cs f s1 fc fs 2 fc fs 3 fc

s m s m s m

A A

T = s4 f s4 s5 f s5

s s

As1 0.67 As2 0.67 '

Pn1 4709a f s1 fc fs 2 fc

s m s m

(Eqn. 1)

As3 0.67 As 4 A

fs 3 fc f s 4 s 5 fs 5

s m s s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

where Cs1 f s1 f c ; Cs 2 s 2 f s 2 f c ; Cs 3 s 3 f s 3 f ;

s m s m s m c

A 0.67

Ts 4 s 4 f s 4 f and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.

s m c

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d = 700 mm

e e d 606.5 700 1306.5 mm.

4) Using c = 875.2 mm (from iteration), which is slightly more than cb (922.7 mm).

a = 1c = 0.9 875.2=787.68 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 875.2 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs f y :

c d

s1 0.0035 =0.00330; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

c

c s d

s 2 0.0035 =0.00190 f s 2 = 380.1 MPa

c

d c 2s

s3 s5 =0.00050 f s 3 = 100.1 MPa

d c

d cs

s 4 s5 =0.00090 f s 4 = 179.8 MPa

d c

d c

s5 0.0035 =0.00230 f s 5 = 459.7 MPa

c

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 3246 kN

Pn2 = 3246 kN

M n Pn e 3246(606.5) /1000 = 1969 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

8368 kN and moments Muy = 11967 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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 flexural demand/capacity ratio

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

taken from the ETABS 2013 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

C c = C cw + C cf , where C cw and C c f are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

0.67

Ccw fcu 200 a 200

m

0.67

Ccf fcu 200 2500

m

As1 0.67 As2 0.67 As3 0.67

Cs f s1 fc fs 2 fc fs 3 fc

s m s m s m

A A A

T s 4 fs 4 s 5 f s 5 s 6 f s 6

s s s

0.67 0.67 A 0.67

Pn1 fcu 200 a 200 fcu 200 2500 s1 fs1 fc

m m s m

(Eqn. 1)

As2 0.67 As3 0.67 As 4 As 5 As 6

fs 2 fc fs 3 fc fs 4 fs 5 fs 6

s m s m s s s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

a tf

1 Ccf d d Ccw d tf C s1 d d C s 2 4 s

Pn 2 2 (Eqn. 2)

e

Cs 3 3s Ts 4 2 s Ts 5 s

where Cs1 f s1 f c ; Csn sn f sn f c ; Tsn sn f sn f c

s m s m s m

and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 1150 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c= 1160 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs f y :

c d

s1 0.0035 = 0.00320; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

c

c s d

s 2 0.0035 = 0.00181 f s 2 = 362.0 MPa

c

c 2s d

s3 0.0035 = 0.00042 f s 3 = 84.4 MPa

c

d c 2s

s 4 s6 = 0.00097 f s 4 = 193.2 MPa

d c

d cs

s5 s6 = 0.00235 f s 5 = 460.00 MPa

d c

d c

s6 0.0035 = 0.00374 f s 6 = 460.00 MPa

c

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 8368 kN

Pn2 = 8368 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

moments Muy = 1875 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS 2013 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

0.36

Cc = f ck ab = 0.4286 30 300a = 3857a , where a 0.84 xu

0.84

A A A

Cs s1 fs1 0.4286 fc s 2 fs 2 0.4286 fc s 3 fs 3 0.4286 fc

s s s

A A

T = s4 f s4 s5 f s5

s s

As1 A

Pn1 3857a fs1 0.4286 fc s 2 fs 2 0.4286 fc

s s

(Eqn. 1)

As3 A A

s

fs 3 0.4286 fc' s 4 fs 4 s 5 fs 5

s s

1 a

Pn 2 Cc d Cs1 d d Cs 2 d d s Cs 3 2s Ts 4 s (Eqn. 2)

e 2

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

As1 A

where Cs1 f s1 0.4286 f c ; Cs 2 s 2 f s 2 0.4286 f c ;

s s

A A

Cs 3 s 3 f s 3 0.4286 f c ; Ts 4 s 4 f s 4 and the bar strains and stresses are

s s

determined below.

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 700 mm

e e d 596 700 1296 mm.

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c = 917.3 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then

fs f y :

cd '

s1 0.0035 = 0.00331; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460 MPa

c

csd '

s2 0.0035 = 0.00197 f s 2 = 394.8 MPa

c

c 2s d '

s3 0.0035 = 0.00064 f s 3 = 127.7 MPa

c

d cs

s4 s5 = 0.00070 f s 4 = 139.4 MPa

d c

d c

s5 0.0035 = 0.00203 f s 5 = 406.5 MPa

c

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 3146 kN

Pn2 = 3146 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu= 8426

kN and moments Muy= 11670 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted below.

The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are

compared with ETABS 2013 program.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show a very close match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

from the ETABS 2013 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

C c = C cw + C cf , where C cw and C c f are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

0.36

Ccw = f ck 200 a - 200 , where a 0.84x u

0.84

0.36

Ccf = f ck 200 2500-1000

0.84

A' 0.36 As2' 0.36 As3' 0.36

Cs = s1 f s1 - f ck + f - f ck f s3 - f ck

s 0.84 s 0.84 s 0.84

s2

A A A

T = s4 f s4 s5 f s5 s6 f s6

s s s

0.36 0.36 As1' 0.36 As2' 0.36

Pn1 = f ck 200 a - 200 + f ck 200 2500-1000 f s1 - f ck + f s2 - f ck

0.84 0.84 s 0.84 s 0.84

As3' 0.36 As4 A A

f s3 - f ck - f s4 s5 f s5 s6 f s6

s 0.84 s s s

(Eqn. 1)

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

1 a tf

Pn2 =

e'Ccf d - d' Ccw d - 2 tf Cs1 d - d' Cs2 4s Cs3 3s Ts4 2s Ts5 s

(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

s 0.84 s 0.84 s

strains and stresses are determined below.

The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 1150 mm

e' = e + d " = 1138 +1150 = 2535 mm.

a = 1c = 0.84 1298.1=1090.4 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0035 and c= 1298.1 mm, the steel stresses and

strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then, f s f y :

cd '

s1 0.003 =0.00323; f s s E Fy ; f s1 460 MPa

c

csd '

s2 0.0035 =0.00199 f s 2 398.0 MPa

c

c 2s d '

s3 0.0035 =0.00075 f s 3 150.0 MPa

c

d c 2s

s4 s5 =0.00049 f s 4 98.1 MPa

d c

d cs

s5 s5 =0.00173 f s 5 346.1 MPa

d c

d c

s6 0.0035 =0.00297 f s 6 460.0 MPa

c

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

moments Muy = 1817 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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.

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS 2013 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

Cs A1 fs1 0.85 0.8 fc* A2 fs 2 0.85 0.8 fc* A3 fs 3 0.85 0.8 fc*

T = As4 f s4 As5 f s5

(Eqn. 1)

A3 fs 3 0.85 0.8 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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

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.

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 936.2 inch, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs f y :

c d

s1 0.003 = 0.0028; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.00 MPa

c

c s d

s 2 0.003 = 0.0017 f s 2 = 343.6 MPa

c

d c 2s

s3 s5 = 0.0005 f s 3 = 119.3 MPa

d c

d cs

s 4 s5 = 0.0060 f s 4 = 105.4 MPa

d c

d c

s5 0.003 = 0.0175 f s 5 = 329.3 MPa

c

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 5064 kN

Pn2 = 5064 kN

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

7) Calculate Pn and, M n ,

M n = 0.70 2595 1817 k-ft.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this

example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is

loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 10165 kN and moments Mu3 = 11430 kN-

m. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are

compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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.

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable match with the independent results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

taken from the ETABS 2013 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

C c = C cw + C cf , where C cw and C c f are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

Ccw 0.85 0.8 fc 200 a 200

Ccf 0.85 0.8 fc 200 1500

Cs A1 fs1 0.85 0.8 fc A2 fs 2 0.85 0.8 fc A3 fs 3 0.85 0.8 fc

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

1 Ccf d d Ccw d t f Cs1 d d

Pn2 2 (Eqn. 2)

e

Cs 2 4s Cs3 3s Ts 4 2s Ts5 s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 1413 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs f y :

cd '

s1 0.003 = 0.00279; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

c

csd '

s2 0.003 = 0.00181 f s 2 = 362.2 MPa

c

c 2s d '

s3 0.003 = 0.00083 f s 2 = 166.8 MPa

c

d c 2s

s4 s6 = 0.00014 f s 3 = 28.6 MPa

d c

d cs

s5 s6 = 0.00112 f s 4 = 223.9 MPa

d c

d c

s6 0.003 = 0.00210 f s 5 = 419.3 MPa

c

Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 14522 kN

Pn2 = 14522 kN

M n Pn e 14522(1124.4) /1000000 = 16328 kN-m

6) Calculate Pn and M n ,

Pn 0.70 14522 10165 kN

M n 0.70 16382 11430 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

P-M INTERACTION CHECK FOR A WALL

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

moments Muy = 2622 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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.

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

taken from the ETABS 2013 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

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

(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

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

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c= 821.7 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs f y :

c d

s1 0.003 = 0.0028; f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.00 MPa

c

c s d

s 2 0.003 = 0.0015 f s 2 = 307.9 MPa

c

d c 2 s

s3 s5 = 0.0003 f s 3 = 52.3 MPa

d c

d cs

s 4 s5 = 0.0010 f s 4 = 203.2 MPa

d c

d c

s5 0.003 = 0.0023 f s 5 = 458.8 MPa

c

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 5352 kN

Pn2 = 5352 kN

6) Calculate ,

M n = 0.85 3085 2622 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =

13625 kN and moments Muy = 16339 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted

below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results

are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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)

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF ETABS 2013 TESTED

Demand/Capacity Ratio for a General Reinforcing pier section.

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 result shows a very close match with the independent result.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

taken from the ETABS 2013 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

C c = C cw + C cf , where C cw and C c f are the area of the concrete web and flange in

compression

Ccw 0.85 fc 200 a 200

Ccf 0.85 fc 200 2500

Cs A1 fs1 0.85 fc A2 fs 2 0.85 fc A3 fs 3 0.85 fc

T As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6

Pn1 0.85 fc 8 a 8 0.85 fc 8 98 A1 fs1 0.85 fc

(Eqn. 1)

A2 fs 2 0.85 fc A3 fs 3 0.85 fc As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6

a tf

C

1 cf d d C cw d t f Cs1 d d Cs2 4s

Pn2 2 (Eqn. 2)

e

Cs3 3s Ts 4 2s Ts5 s

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

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 1c 0.85 1259.8 1070.83 mm

5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 1259.8 mm, the steel stresses

and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,

fs f y :

c d

s1 0.003 = 0.00276; fs s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa

c

c s d

s 2 0.003 = 0.00167 f s 2 = 333.3 MPa

c

c 2s d

s3 0.003 = 0.00057 f s 3 = 114.2 MPa

c

d c 2s

s 4 s 6 = 0.00052 f s 4 = 104.9 MPa

d c

d cs

s5 s 6 = 0.00167 f s 5 = 324.0 MPa

d c

d c

s 6 0.003 = 0.00272 f s 6 = 460.0 MPa

c

two equations are equal give

Pn1 = 16029 kN

Pn2 = 16029 kN

M n Pn e 16029(1199.2) /1000000 = 19222 kN-m

6) Calculate ,

Pn 0.85 16029 13625 kN

M n 0.85 19222 16339 kN-m

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this

example.

moments Muy = 1969 kN-m. This wall is reinforced with two 30M bars at each

end and 15M bars at 350 mm on center of each face. The total area of

reinforcement is 4000 mm2. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand

calculations and the results are compared with ETABS 2013 program results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

= 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

Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS 2013 design

check.

ETABS Percent

Output Parameter 2013 Independent Difference

CONCLUSION

The ETABS 2013 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent

results.

Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS 2013

REVISION NO.: 0

HAND CALCULATION

b = 300mm h = 1500 mm

taken from the ETABS 2013 test model PMM interaction diagram for pier P1.

Values for M u and Pu were taken near the balanced condition and large enough to

produce a flexural D/C ratio very close to or equal to one. The depth to the neutral

axis, c, was determined by iteration using an excel spreadsheet so that equations 1 and

2 below were equal.

The distance to the neutral axis for a balanced condition, cb:

700 700

cb = dt = 1450 = 922.7 mm

700 + f y / s 700 + 460 /1.15

2) From the equation of equilibrium:

Pn = Cc Cs T

where

0.67 0.67

Cc fcu ab 30 300a 4020a

m 1.5

As1 0.67 As2 0.67 As3 0.67

Cs f s1 fc fs 2 fc fs 3 fc

s m s m s m

A A

T s 4 fs 4 s 5 fs 5

s s

As1 0.67 As2 0.67

Pn1 4709a f s1 fc fs 2 fc

s m s m

(Eqn. 1)

As3 0.67 As 4 A

fs 3 fc fs 4 s 5 fs 5

s m s s

a

1 Cc d Cs1 d d Cs 2 d d s

Pn 2 2

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.