Software Verification
Software Verification
Software Verification
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.
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.
Introduction
Methodology
Conclusions
Problems
Analysis Problems
1 Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads, Static Gravity Load Analysis
i
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
ii
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
Design Examples
Steel Frame
CSA S16-09 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression &
Bending
CSA S16-09 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Compression &
Bending
CSA S16-14 Example 001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression &
Bending
CSA S16-14 Example 002 Wide Flange Member Under Compression &
Bending
iii
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
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
ACI 318-14 Example 001 Beam Shear & Flexural Reinforcing
ACI 318-14 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
iv
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
CSA A23.3-04 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
CSA A23.3-14 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
NTC 2008 Example 002 KBC P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
KBC 2009 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
RCDF 2004 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
NZS 3101-2006 Example 002 P-M Interaction Check for Rectangular Column
v
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
Shear Wall
vi
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
Composite Beam
Composite Column
vii
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
Slab
viii
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
References
ix
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
i
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
ii
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
iii
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
INTRODUCTION iv
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
INTRODUCTION
This manual provides example problems used to test various features and capabilities of the
ETABS program. Users should supplement these examples as necessary for verifying their
particular application of the software.
METHODOLOGY
A series of test problems, or examples, designed to test the various elements and analysis
features of the program were created. For each example, this manual contains a short
description of the problem; a list of significant ETABS options tested; and a comparison of
key results with theoretical results or results from other computer programs. The comparison
of the ETABS results with results obtained from independent sources is provided in tabular
form as part of each example.
To validate and verify ETABS results, the test problems were run on a PC platform that was
a Dell machine with a Pentium III processor and 512 MB of RAM operating on a Windows
XP operating system.
Acceptance Criteria
The comparison of the ETABS validation and verification example results with independent
results is typically characterized in one of the following three ways.
Exact: There is no difference between the ETABS results and the independent results within
the larger of the accuracy of the typical ETABS output and the accuracy of the independent
result.
Acceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference between the
ETABS results and the independent results does not exceed five percent (5%). For internal
force and stress values, the difference between the ETABS results and the independent
results does not exceed ten percent (10%). For experimental values, the difference between
the ETABS results and the independent results does not exceed twenty five percent (25%).
Unacceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference between the
ETABS results and the independent results exceeds five percent (5%). For internal force and
stress values, the difference between the ETABS results and the independent results exceeds
ten percent (10%). For experimental values, the difference between the ETABS results and
the independent results exceeds twenty five percent (25%).
The percentage difference between results is typically calculated using the following
formula:
ETABS Result
Percent Difference 100 1
Independent Result
INTRODUCTION 1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
For examples with multiple versions of meshing density of area elements, only the models
with the finest meshing density are expected to fall within Exact or Acceptable limits.
Summary of Examples
The example problems addressed plane frame, three-dimensional, and wall structures as
well as shear wall and floor objects. The analyses completed included dynamic response
spectrum, eigenvalue, nonlinear time history, and static gravity and lateral load.
Other program features tested include treatment of automatic generation of seismic and wind
loads, automatic story mass calculation, biaxial friction pendulum and biaxial hysteretic
elements, brace and column members with no bending stiffness, column pinned end
connections, multiple diaphragms, non-rigid joint offsets on beams and columns, panel
zones, point assignments, rigid joint offsets, section properties automatically recovered from
the database, uniaxial damper element, uniaxial gap elements, vertical beam span loading
and user specified lateral loads and section properties.
Slab design examples verify the design algorithms used in ETABS for flexural, shear design
of beam; flexural and punching shear of reinforced concrete slab; and flexural design and
serviceability stress checks of post-tensioned slab by comparing ETABS results with hand
calculations.
Analysis: Of the fifteen Analysis problems, eight showed exact agreement while the
remaining seven showed acceptable agreement between ETABS and the cited independent
sources.
Design Steel Frame: All 30 Steel Frame Design problems showed acceptable agreement
between ETABS and the cited independent sources.
Design Concrete Frame: All 34 Concrete Frame Design problems showed acceptable
agreement between ETABS and the cited independent sources.
Design Shear Wall: All 32 of the Shear Wall Design problems showed acceptable
agreement between ETABS and the cited independent sources.
Design Composite Beam: The 6 Composite Beam Design problems showed acceptable
agreement between ETABS and the cited independent sources.
Design Slab: The 48 Slab Design problems showed acceptable agreement between ETABS
and cited independent sources.
Summary of Examples 2
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
CONCLUSIONS
ETABS is the latest release of the ETABS series of computer programs. Since development,
ETABS has been used widely for structural analysis. The ongoing usage of the program
coupled with continuing program upgrades are strong indicators that most program bugs
have been identified and corrected.
When reviewing results, the following process can help determine if the mesh is adequate.
Pick a joint in a high stress area that has several different area elements connected to it.
Review the stress reported for that joint for each of the area elements. If the stresses are
similar, the mesh likely is adequate. Otherwise, additional meshing is required. If you choose
to view the stresses graphically when using this process, be sure to turn off the stress
averaging feature when displaying the stresses.
CONCLUSIONS 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1
Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads - Static Gravity Load Analysis
Problem Description
This is a one-story, two-dimensional frame subjected to vertical static loading.
To be able to compare ETABS results with theoretical results using prismatic members and
elementary beam theory, rigid joint offsets on columns and beams are not modeled, and axial
and shear deformations are neglected. Thus, the automatic property generation feature of
ETABS is not used; instead, the axial area and moment of inertia for each member are explic-
itly input.
The frame geometry and loading patterns are shown in Figure 1-1.
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
REVISION NO.: 0
Results Comparison
The theoretical results for bending moments and shear forces on beams B1 and B2 are easily
obtained from tabulated values for propped cantilevers (American Institute of Steel Construc-
tion 1989). These values for beam B1 are compared with ETABS results in Table 1-1.
Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads - Static Gravity Load Analysis 1-2
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Computer File
The input data file for this example is Example 01.EDB. This file is provided as part of the
ETABS installation.
Conclusion
The comparison of results shows an exact match between the ETABS results and the theoret-
ical data.
Plane Frame with Beam Span Loads - Static Gravity Load Analysis 1-3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 2
Three-Story Plane Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis
Problem Description
This is a three-story plane frame subjected to the El Centro 1940 seismic response spectra, N-S
component, 5 percent damping.
Assuming the beams to be rigid and a rigid offset at the column top ends of 24 inches (i.e.,
equal to the depth of the beams), and neglecting both shear deformations and axial defor-
mations, the story lateral stiffness for this example can be calculated (Przemieniecki 1968).
The example then reduces to a three-spring, three-mass system with equal stiffnesses and
masses. This can be analyzed using any exact method (Paz 1985) to obtain the three natural
periods and mass normalized mode shapes of the system.
The spectral accelerations at the three natural periods can then be linearly interpolated from
the response spectrum used.
The spectral accelerations can in turn be used with the mode shapes and story mass infor-
mation to obtain the modal responses (Paz 1985). The modal responses for story displace-
ments and column moments can then be combined using the complete quadratic combination
procedure (Wilson, et al. 1981).
The column is modeled to have infinite axial area, so that axial deformation is neglected. Al-
so, zero column shear area is input to trigger the ETABS option of neglecting shear defor-
mations. These deformations are neglected to be consistent with the hand-calculated model
with which the results are compared.
Results Comparison
The three theoretical natural periods and mass normalized mode shapes are compared in Ta-
ble 2-1 with ETABS results.
The story displacements and column moments thus obtained are compared in Table 2-2 with
ETABS results. The results are identical.
Computer Files
The input data file for this example is Example 02.EDB. The response spectrum file is
ELCN-RS1. These files are provided as part of the ETABS installation.
Conclusion
The result comparison shows an exact match between the ETABS results and the theoretical
data.
EXAMPLE 3
Three-Story Plane Frame, Code-Specified Static Lateral Load Analysis
Problem Description
The frame is modeled as a two-column line, single bay system. This three-story plane frame
is subjected to the following three code-specified lateral load cases:
UBC 1997 specified seismic loads (International Conference of Building Officials 1997)
ASCE 7-02 specified seismic loads (American Society of Civil Engineers 2002)
UBC 1997 specified wind loads (International Conference of Building Officials 1997)
For the UBC97 seismic load analysis, the code parameters associated with the analysis are as
follows:
For the ASCE 7-02 seismic load analysis, the code parameters associated with the analysis
are as follows:
Site Class =C
Response Accel, Ss =1
Response Accel, S1 = 0.4
Response Modification, R =8
Coefficient Ct = 0.035
Seismic Group =I
For the UBC97 wind load analysis, the exposure and code parameters associated with the
analysis are as follows:
Results Comparison
For each of the static lateral load analyses, the story shears can be computed using the
formulae given in the applicable references. For the seismic loads, the fundamental period
computed by ETABS can be used in the formulae. From ETABS results, this fundamental
period is 0.5204 second. (Note the difference between the calculated fundamental period for
this example and Example 2, which neglects shear and axial deformations.)
Hand-calculated story shears are compared with story shears produced by the ETABS
program in Table 3-1 for UBC seismic loads, Table 3-2 for ASCE 7-02 seismic loads and
Table 3-3 for UBC wind loads.
Table 3-1 Comparison of Results for Story Shears - UBC 1997 Seismic
Level ETABS (kips) Theoretical (kips)
Roof 34.07 34.09
2nd 56.78 56.82
1st 68.13 68.19
Table 3-2 Comparison of Results for Story Shears - ASCE 7-02 Seismic
Table 3-3 Comparison of Results for Story Shears - UBC 1997 Wind
Level ETABS (kips) Theoretical (kips)
Roof 3.30 3.30
2nd 9.49 9.49
1st 15.21 15.21
Computer File
The input data file for this example is Example 03.EDB. This file is provided as part of the
ETABS installation.
Conclusion
The results comparison shows an exact match between the ETABS results and the theoretical
data.
EXAMPLE 4
Single-Story, Three-Dimensional Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis
Problem Description
This is a one-story, four-bay, three-dimensional frame. The frame is subjected to the El Cen-
tro 1940 N-S component seismic response spectrum, for 5 percent damping, in two orthogo-
nal directions. The columns are modeled to neglect shear and axial deformations to be con-
sistent with the assumptions of hand calculations with which the results are compared.
The example is a three-degree-of-freedom system. From the individual column lateral stiff-
nesses, assuming rigid beams and rigid offsets at column top ends equal to 36 inches (i.e., the
depth of the beams) and neglecting both shear deformations and column axial deformations,
the structural stiffness matrix can be assembled (Przemieniecki 1968).
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:
Results Comparison
From the stiffness and mass matrices of the system, the three natural periods and mass nor-
malized mode shapes of the system can be obtained (Paz 1985). These are compared in Table
4-1 with ETABS results.
Computer File
The input data file for this example is Example 04.EDB. This file is provided as part of the
ETABS installation.
Conclusion
The results comparison shows an exact match between the ETABS results and the theoretical
data.
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 geometry of the structure and a typical frame are shown in Figure 5-1.
Results Comparison
This example has been solved in Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and Peterson (1981). A
comparison of ETABS results for natural periods and key member forces for one frame
with these references is given in Table 5-1.
D2 D4
D1 D3
D2 D4
D1 D3
D2 D4
D1 D3
Computer File
The input data file is Example 05.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS installa-
tion.
Conclusions
The results comparison reflects acceptable agreement between the ETABS results and ref-
erence data.
EXAMPLE 6
Nine-Story, Ten-Bay Plane Frame - Eigenvalue Analysis
Problem Description
An eigenvalue analysis is completed.
Eigenvalue analysis
Results Comparison
This example is also analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and Bathe and Wilson
(1972). There are two differences between the ETABS analysis and the analyses of the
references. The models of the references assign vertical and horizontal mass degrees of
freedom to each joint in the structure. However, the ETABS model only assigns horizontal
masses and additionally, only one horizontal mass is assigned for all the joints associated
with any one floor level.
The eigenvalues obtained from ETABS are compared in Table 6-1 with results from Wilson
and Habibullah (1992) and Bathe and Wilson (1972).
Computer File
The input data filename for this example is Example 06.EDB. This file is provided as part of
the ETABS installation.
Conclusions
Considering the differences in modeling enumerated herein, the results comparison between
ETABS and the references is acceptable.
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).
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
Vertical Loading,
typical for all
levels
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
Computer Files
The input data file is Example 07.EDB. The input history is ELCN-THU. Time history re-
sults are obtained for the first eight seconds of the excitation. This is consistent with DY-
NAMIC/EASE2, with which the results are compared. These computer files are provided
as part of the ETABS installation.
Conclusions
Noting the difference in modal combination techniques between ETABS and Wilson and
Habibullah, which uses complete quadratic combination (CQC), and DYNAMIC/EASE2,
which uses square root of the sum of the squares combination (SRSS), the results of the
testing are acceptable.
EXAMPLE 8
Two-Story, Three-Dimensional Frame - Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis
Problem Description
This is a two-story, three-dimensional building frame subjected to a response spectrum of
constant amplitude. The three-dimensional structure is modeled as a single frame with nine
column lines and twelve bays. Kip-foot-second units are used.
For consistency with the models documented in other computer programs with which the
ETABS results are compared (see Table 8-1), no story mass moments of inertia are as-
signed in the ETABS model.
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
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
Comparison of Results
This example is also analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992) and Peterson (1981). A
comparison of the key ETABS results with Wilson and Habibullah (Reference 1) and Pe-
terson (Reference 2) is shown in Table 8-1.
Computer File
The input data file is Example 08.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS installa-
tion.
Conclusion
The results comparison shows acceptable agreement between ETABS and the references.
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).
Results Comparison
The structure is also analyzed in Wilson and Habibullah (1992). Key ETABS results are
compared in Table 9-1.
Computer File
The input data file is Example 09.EDB. This file is provided as part of the ETABS installa-
tion.
Conclusions
The results comparison shows exact agreement between ETABS and the reference material.
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.
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
REVISION NO.: 0
1 2
D1 D2
D1 D2
D1 D2
Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis 10 - 2
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Results Comparison
Sample results are compared in Table 10-1 with results from the nonlinear analysis program
DRAIN-2DX (Prakash, et al. 1993) for both 5% and 25% damping cases.
Table 10-1 Results Comparison
Computer Files
The input data files for this example are Example 10A.EDB (5% damping) and Example
10B.EDB (25% damping). The time history file is ELCN-THE. These files are provided as
part of the ETABS installation.
Conclusions
The results comparison show acceptable to exact agreement between ETABS and DRAIN-
2DX.
Three-Story Plane Frame with ADAS Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis 10 - 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Example 11
Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements - Nonlinear Time History
Analysis
Problem Description
The El Centro 1940 (N-S) record is used in the nonlinear time history analysis. Three viscous
damper elements of the type described in Hanson (1993) are used to connect the chevron
braces to the frame. Two models are investigated. In the first model, the damper elements are
intended to produce about 5% damping in the fundamental mode. In the second model, damp-
ing is increased to 25%.
The ETABS viscous damper element (DAMPER) is a uniaxial damping device with a linear
or nonlinear force-velocity relationship given by F = 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.
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
REVISION NO.: 0
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
REVISION NO.: 0
Computer File
The input data files for this example are Example 11A.EDB (5% damping) and Example
11B.EDB (25% damping). The time history file is ELCN-THE. These files are provided
as part of the ETABS installation.
Conclusions
The comparison of results shows acceptable agreement between ETABS and DRAIN-2DX.
Three-Story Plane Frame with Viscous Damper Elements - Nonlinear Time History Analysis 11 - 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 12
Pounding of Two Planar Frames, Nonlinear Time History Analysis
Problem Description
A two-bay, seven-story plane frame is linked to a one-bay four-story plane frame using
ETABS GAP elements. The structure experiences pounding because of ground motion.
The El Centro 1940 (N-S) record is used in the nonlinear time history analysis.
This example illustrates the use of gap elements to model pounding between buildings.
The combined structure is modeled as a single frame with five column lines and three beam
bays. Kip-inch-second units are used. The modulus of elasticity is taken as 29500 ksi. Col-
umn and beam section properties are user defined.
Through the joint assignment option, Column lines 4 and 5 are connected to Diaphragm 2.
Column lines 1 to 3 remain connected to Diaphragm 1 by default. This arrangement physi-
cally divides the structure into two parts. The interaction is provided via the gap elements,
which are used as links spanning Column lines 3 and 4. The local axis 1 of the links is in
the global X-direction.
Point assignments
Results Comparison
The example frame analyzed using ETABS is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Computers
and Structures 2002) for time history loads (SAP2000 has been verified independently). A
comparison of key ETABS results with SAP2000 is presented in Table 12-1.
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.
Computer Files
The input data for this example is Example 12.EDB. The time history file is ELCN-THU.
Both of the files are provided as part of the ETABS installation.
Conclusions
The results comparison shows essentially exact agreement between ETABS and SAP2000.
EXAMPLE 13
Base-Isolated, Two-Story, 3D Frame - Nonlinear Time History Analysis
Problem Description
This is a two-story, three-dimensional frame with base isolation. The structure is subjected
to earthquake motion in two perpendicular directions using the Loma Prieta acceleration
records.
Hysteretic base isolators of the type described in Nagarajaiah et al. (1991) are modeled us-
ing the ETABS ISOLATOR1 elements, which show biaxial hysteretic characteristics.
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.
Point assignments
Results Comparison
The example frame analyzed using ETABS is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Computers
and Structures 2002) for time history loads (SAP2000 has been verified independently). A
comparison of key ETABS results with SAP200 is presented in Table 13-1.
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.
Conclusion
The results comparison shows essentially exact agreement between ETABS and SAP2000.
EXAMPLE 14
Friction Pendulum Base-Isolated 3D Frame - Nonlinear Time History Analysis
Problem Description
This is a two-story, three-dimensional frame with base isolation using friction pendulum
base isolators. The structure is subjected to earthquake motion in two perpendicular direc-
tions using the Loma Prieta acceleration records.
Friction pendulum type base isolators of the type described in Zayas and Low (1990) are
modeled using the ETABS ISOLATOR2 elements.
It is important for these isolator elements that the axial load from other loads be modeled
before starting the nonlinear analysis. This is achieved by using a factor of unity on the
dead load (self weight) on the structure in the nonlinear analysis initial conditions data.
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.
Point assignments
Results Comparison
The example frame analyzed using ETABS is also analyzed using SAP2000 (Computers and
Structures 2002) for time history loads (SAP2000 has been verified independently). A com-
parison of key ETABS results with SAP2000 is presented in Table 14-1.
Table 14-1 Comparison of Result for Time History Analysis
Quantity ETABS SAP2000
Maximum Uy Displacement, Column C9 at 2nd Floor 4.2039 4.2069
Maximum Axial Force, Column C1 at base 37.54 38.25
A typical output produced by the program is shown in Figure 14-2. It shows the variation of
the displacement of the second story at column line 1.
Conclusion
The results comparison shows acceptable agreement between ETABS and SAP2000.
EXAMPLE 15
Wall Object Behavior - Static Lateral Loads Analysis
Problem Description
This example analyzes a series of wall configurations to evaluate the behavior of the
ETABS shell object with wall section assignments. All walls are subjected to a static lateral
load applied at the top of the wall.
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
TH
TH
TH
RD
ND
ST
30 30
C1 C2
210
Y 8 18
X
Global
Reference
Point
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
Results Comparison
All walls analyzed in this example using ETABS were also analyzed using the general
structural analysis program SAP2000 (Computers and Structure 2002), using refined mesh-
es of the membrane/shell element of that program. The SAP2000 meshes used are shown in
Figures 15-7, 15-8, 15-9, 15-10, 15-11 and 15-12. For the SAP2000 analysis, the rigid dia-
phragms at the floor levels were modeled by constraining all wall nodes at the floor to have
the same lateral displacement for planar walls, or by adding rigid members in the plane of
the floor for three-dimensional walls.
The lateral displacements from the ETABS and SAP2000 analyses are compared in Tables
15-1, 15-2, 15-3, 15-4, 15-5 and 15-6 for the various walls.
Table 15-1 Results Comparison for Top Displacements (Inches), Example 15a
Number Wall Height Wall Length
of Stories (inches) (inches) ETABS SAP2000
6 720 120 2.3921 2.4287
360 0.0986 0.1031
720 0.0172 0.0186
3 360 120 0.3071 0.3205
360 0.0170 0.0187
720 0.0046 0.0052
1 120 120 0.0145 0.0185
360 0.0025 0.0029
720 0.0011 0.0013
Computer Files
The input data files for the planar shear walls are included as files Example 15A1.EDB
through Example 15A9.EDB. These and the following input data files are provided as part
of the ETABS installation.
The input data for the wall supported on columns is Example 15B.EDB.
The input data files for the wall-spandrel system are Example C1.EDB through Example
C4.EDB.
The input data files for the shaped wall section are included as files Example 15D1.EDB
and Example 15D2.EDB.
The input data for the wall with thickened edges are included as files Example 15E1.EDB
and Example 15E2.EDB.
The input data for the E-shaped wall section are included as files Example 15F1.EDB and
Example 15F2.EDB.
Conclusion
The results comparison show acceptable agreement between ETABS and SAP2000. In
general, the comparisons become better as the number of stories increases.
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.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are comparing with the results of Example F.1-2a from the
AISC Design Examples, Volume 13 on the application of the 2005 AISC
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-05).
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Compactness Compact Compact 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Section: W18x50
bf = 7.5 in, tf = 0.57 in, d = 18 in, tw = 0.355 in
h = d 2t f = 18 2 0.57 = 16.86 in
I y Cw 40.1 3045.644
=rts = = 1.98 in
S33 88.889
Loadings:
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 1.2(0.45) + 1.6(0.75) = 1.74 k/ft
Mu =
wu L2
8
= 1.74 352/8 = 266.4375 k-ft
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
bf 7.50
= = = 6.579
2t f 2 0.57
E 29000
p = 0.38 = 0.38 = 9.152
Fy 50
E 29000
p = 3.76 = 3.76 = 90.553
Fy 50
Section is Compact.
Lr = 16.966 ft
12.5M max
Cb = Rm 3.0 Eqn. 1
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
Where MA = first quarter-span moment, MB = mid-span moment, MC = second quarter-span
moment.
The required moments for Eqn. 1 can be calculated as a percentage of the maximum mid-span
moment. Since the loading is uniform and the resulting moment is symmetric:
2
1 L
M A = MC = 1 b
4 L
Cb = 1.002
=
M n =
M p 5050 k in
b M=
n 0.9 5050 /12
b M n 378.75 k ft
=
Cb = 1.014
Lb L p
M n = C b M p (M p 0.7 Fy S 33 ) M p
L
r L p
11.667 5.835
=M n 1.014 5050 ( 5050 0.7 50 88.889 ) = 4088.733 k in
16.966 5.835
b M=
n 0.9 4088.733 /12
b M n 306.657 k ft
=
Cb = 1.136
2
Cb 2 E Jc L
Fcr = 2
1 + 0.078 b
Lb S 33 ho rts
r
ts
Fcr = 1 + 0.078 =
14.133 ksi
420
2
88.889 17.4 1.983
1.983
M n = Fcr S 33 M p
b M=
n 0.9 1256.245 /12
b M n 94.218 k ft
=
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.
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.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Loadings:
Section Compactness:
Check for slender elements using Specification Section E7
KL y 1.0(15 12 )
= = 86.6
ry 2.08
2E 2 29000
Fe = = = 38.18 ksi
KL
2
(86.6)2
r
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
E 29000 KLy
4.71 =4.71 =113 > =86.6
QFy 1.0 ( 50 ) ry
So
QFy
1.0( 50 )
f = Fcr = Q 0.658 Fe Fy = 1.0 0.658 38.2 50 = 28.9 ksi
E 0.34 E
be = 1.92t 1 b, where b = h
f ( b t ) f
29000 0.34 29000
be = 1.92 ( 0.250 ) 1 15.0in
28.9 (15.0 0.250 ) 28.9
=be 12.5in 15.0in
Aeff 19.1
=
Qa= = 0.968
A 19.75
=Q Q=
s Qa (1.00 )( 0.968
= ) 0.968
Critical Buckling Stress
Determine whether Specification Equation E7-2 or E7-3 applies
E 29000 KLy
4.71 = 4.71 = 115.4 > = 86.6
QFy 0.966 ( 50 ) ry
E KL
When 4.71
QFy r
QFy
1.0( 50 )
=Fcr Q 0.658
= Fe
Fy 0.966 0.658
= 38.18
50 28.47 ksi
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.
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
Compactness Compact Compact 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Section: W18x50
bf = 7.5 in, tf = 0.57 in, d = 18 in, tw = 0.355 in
h = d 2t f = 18 2 0.57 = 16.86 in
I y Cw 40.1 3045.644
=rts = = 1.98in
S33 88.889
Loadings:
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 1.2(0.45) + 1.6(0.75) = 1.74 k/ft
Mu =
wu L2
8
= 1.74 352/8 = 266.4375 k-ft
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
bf 7.50
= = = 6.579
2t f 2 0.57
E 29000
p = 0.38 = 0.38 = 9.152
Fy 50
E 29000
p = 3.76 = 3.76 = 90.553
Fy 50
Cb = 1.002
=
M n =
M p 5050 k-in
b M n =
378.75 k-ft
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 )
Cb = 1.014
Lb L p
M n = C b M p (M p 0.7 Fy S 33 ) Mp
L L
r p
11.667 5.835
=M n 1.014 5050 ( 5050 0.7 50 88.889 ) = 4088.733 k-in
16.966 5.835
b M n =
0.9 4088.733 /12
b M n =
306.657 k-ft
Cb = 1.136
Fcr = 1 + 0.078 =
14.133ksi
420
2
88.889 17.4 1.983
1.983
M n = Fcr S 33 M p
b M n =
0.9 1256.245 /12
b M n =
94.218 k-ft
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.
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.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Loadings:
Pu = 1.2(70.0) + 1.6(210) = 420 kips
Section Compactness:
Check for slender elements using Specification Section E7
KL y 1.0(15 12 )
= = 86.6
ry 2.08
2 E 2 29000
=Fe = = 38.18 ksi
(86.6 )
2 2
KL
r
2 EC 1
=Fe w
+ GJ
( 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
E 29000 KLy
4.71 =4.71 =113 > =86.6
QFy 1.0 ( 50 ) ry
So
QFy
1.0( 50 )
f = Fcr = Q 0.658 Fy = 1.0 0.658 38.2 50 = 28.9 ksi
Fe
0.34 E
E
be = 1.92t 1 b, where b = h
(b t ) f
f
29000 0.34 29000
be = 1.92 ( 0.250 ) 1 15.0in
28.9 (15.0 0.250 ) 28.9
=be 12.5in 15.0in
therefore compute Aeff with reduced effective web width.
Aeff =betw + 2b f t f =(12.5)( 0.250 ) + 2 (8.0 )(1.0 ) =19.1 in 2
where Aeff is effective area based on the reduced effective width of the web, be.
Aeff 19.1
=
Qa= = 0.968
A 19.75
=Q Q=
s Qa (1.00 )( 0.968
= ) 0.968
Critical Buckling Stress
Determine whether Specification Equation E7-2 or E7-3 applies
E 29000 KLy
4.71 = 4.71 = 115.4 > = 86.6
QFy 0.966 ( 50 ) ry
E KL
When 4.71
QFy r
QFy
1.0( 50 )
=Fcr Q 0.658
= Fe
Fy 0.966 0.658
= 38.18
50 28.47 ksi
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.
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
Compactness Non-Compact Non-Compact 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact match with the independent results.
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 2t f = 7.89 2 0.205 = 7.48 in
Member:
L = 12.65 ft
lb = 3 ft
Loadings:
w = 1.0 k/ft
M=
wL2
8
= 1.0 12.652/8 = 20.0 k-ft
fb = 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
640 f 640 0
=
p 1 3.74 a = 1 3.74 = 90.510
Fy F y 50 50
Section is Non-Compact.
Fb 33 = 32.70 ksi
76b f 20,000 A f
l c = min ,
Fy dFy
lc = 40.948 in
Fb 33 = 32.70 ksi
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.
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
Compactness Compact Compact 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: A36 Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 36 ksi
Section: W12x120:
bf = 12.32 in, tf = 1.105 in, d =13.12 in, tw=0.71 in
A = 35.3 in2
rx=5.5056 in
Member:
K = 2.13
L = 15 ft
Loadings:
P = 560 kips
Design Axial Stress:
P 560
f=
a =
A 35.3
f a = 15.86 ksi
Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
bf 12.32
= = = 5.575
2t f 2 1.105
65 65
p
= = = 10.83
Fy 36
d 13.12
= = = 18.48
tw 0.71
fa
Since = 0.44 > 0.16
Fy
257 257
p
= = = 42.83
Fy 36
Section is Compact.
22 E 22 29000
=Cc = = 126.099
Fy 36
KL x
rx 69.638
= = 0.552
Cc 126.099
KL x
< Cc
rx
1 KL x rx
2
1.0 Fy
2 Cc
Fa = 3
5 3 KL x rx 1 KL r
+ x x
3 8 C c 8 Cc
2
1.0 (0.552 ) 36
1
Fa =
2
+ (0.552 ) (0.552 )
5 3 1 3
3 8 8
Fa = 16.47 ksi
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.
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
Compactness Compact Compact 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Fr = 10 ksi (for rolled shapes)
FL = Fy Fr = 50 10 = 40 ksi
Section: W18x40
bf = 6.02 in, tf = 0.525 in, d = 17.9 in, tw = 0.315 in
hc = d 2t f = 17.9 2 0.525 = 16.85 in
A = 11.8 in2
S33 = 68.3799 in3, Z33 = 78.4 in3
Iy = 19.1 in4, ry = 1.2723 in
Cw = 1441.528 in6, J = 0.81 in4
Other:
L = 35 ft
b = 0.9
Loadings:
wu = 1.6 k/ft
Mu =
wu L2
8
= 1.6 352/8 = 245.0 k-ft
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
bf 6.02
= = = 5.733
2t f 2 0.525
65 65
p
= = = 9.192
Fy 50
Section is Compact.
X1
=
Lr r22 1 + 1 + X 2 FL 2
FL
1.27 1810
=
Lr 1 + 1 + 0.0172 40
= 2
= 12.069 ft
144.8in
40
Cb = 1.002
b M n =
294.0 k-ft
Cb = 1.014
Lb Lp
M= C M ( M F S )
L 33 M p
Lr L p
n b p p
11.667 4.486
M n 1.01 3920 ( 3920 40 68.4 )
= = 2836.042 k-in
12.06 4.486
b M n =0.9 2836.042 /12
b M n =
212.7031 k-ft
Cb = 1.136
M n = Fcr S 33 M p
2
Cb E
=M cr EI 22GJ + I 22CW
Lb Lb
1.136 29000
2
b M n =
50.599 k-ft
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A check of the column adequacy is checked for combined axial compression and
flexural loads. The column is 14 feet tall and loaded with an axial load,
Pu = 1400 kips and bending, M ux , M uy = 200k-ft and 70k-ft, respectively. It is
assumed that there is reverse-curvature bending with equal end moments about
both axes and no loads along the member. The column demand/capacity ratio is
checked against the results of Example 6.2 in the 3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of
Steel Construction, pages 6-6 to 6-8.
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
Compactness Compact Compact 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: ASTM A992 Grade 50 Steel
Fy = 50 ksi, E = 29,000 ksi
Section: W14x176
A = 51.8 in2,
bf = 15.7 in, tf = 1.31 in, d = 15.2 in, tw = 0.83 in
hc = d 2t f = 15.2 2 1.31 = 12.58 in
Ix = 2,140 in4, Iy = 838 in4, rx = 6.4275 in, ry = 4.0221 in
Sx = 281.579 in3, Sy = 106.7516 in3, Zx = 320.0 in3, Zy = 163.0 in3.
Member:
Kx = Ky = 1.0
L = Lb = 14 ft
Other
c =0.85
b =0.9
Loadings:
Pu = 1400 kips
Mux = 200 k-ft
Muy = 70 k-ft
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
=
( 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.
Pu
Since = 0.601 > 0.125
b Py
191 P 253
=p 2.33 u
Fy 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 y L Fy 1.0 14 12 50
=c = = 0.552
ry E 4.022 29000
(
Fy 0.658c
Fcr =
2
)=
50 0.658 0.5522
=
44.012 ksi
c Pn =
c Fcr Ag =
0.85 44.012 51.8
c Pn =
1937.84 kips
Pu 1400
= = 0.722 > 0.2
c Pn 1937.84
50 160.1274
=M py = 667.198 k-ft
12
E
L p = 1.76ry
Fyf
29000 1
L= 1.76 4.02 = 14.2 ft > L= 14 ft
p
50 12 b
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
Cm
B1 = 1
P
1 u
Pe1
M1
= +1.0
M2
M
C m = 0.6 0.4 1
M2
C m = 0.6 0.4(1.0 ) = 0.2
2 EI
pe1 =
( KL )
2
2 29000 2140
=pe1x = 21, 702 kips
(14.0 12 )
2
2 29000 838
=pe1 y = 8, 498
(14.0 12 )
2
C mx
B1x = 1
Pu
1
Pe1x
0.2
=
B1x = 0.214 1
1400
1
21702
B1x = 1
C my
B1 y = 1
P
1 u
P
e1 y
0.2
=
B1 y = 0.239 1
1400
1
8498
B1 y = 1
M ux = 1.0 200 = 200 kip-ft;
and
M uy = 1.0 70 = 70 kip-ft
1400 8 200 70
+ + =0.974 < 1.0 , OK
1940 9 1200 600.478
D
= 0.974
C
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m
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
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
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 tw ) f y 350 20 250
=e = = 5.89
2tf 250 2 28 250
Flange is under uniform compression, so:
ep 9,=
= ey 16,=
ew 90
e = 5.89 < ep = 9 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is compact
h fy 331 250
=e = = 16.55
tw 250 20 250
N s = 6275kN
=
le 22 K f fy
=
6000
(1 250=
) 67.216
n 22
r22 250 89.264 250
2100( n 22 13.5)
= a 22 = 20.363
n 22 2 15.3 n 22 + 2050
b 22 = 0.5 since cross-section is not a UB or UC section
22 = n 22 + a 22 b 22 = 67.216 + 20.363 0.5 = 77.398
=
22 0.00326( 22 13.5)
= 0.2083 0
22
2 2
77.398
+ 1 + 22 + 1 + 0.2083
= 22 90
= 90
= 1.317
22
2 2
77.398
2 2
90 90
90 2
c 22 = 22 1 1
22 22
2
1 90
c= 1.317 1 = 0.6988
22
1.317 77.398
N c 22 =
c 22 N s N s
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object bending strengths are tested in this example.
Mx
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m
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
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
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
This leads to:
M 2 * = 250 kN-m
M 3 * = 500 kN-m
M 4 * = 750 kN-m
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
(b f tw ) f y 350 20 250
=e = = 5.89
2tf 250 2 28 250
Flange is under uniform compression, so:
ep = 9, ey = 16, ew = 90
=
e 5.89 < =
ep 9 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is compact
h fy 331 250
=e = = 16.55
tw 250 20 250
Web is under bending, so:
ep = 82, ey = 115, ew = 180
=
e 16.55 <=
ep 30 , No localized web buckling
Web is compact.
Section is Compact.
Z=
e 33 Z=
c 33 3,350, 000 mm 2
M=
s 33 = f y Z=
M s ,major e 33 250 3,350, 000 /10002
= =
M s 33 M s ,major 837.5 kN-m
kr = 1 (Program default)
2 EI 22 2 EI w
M= = GJ +
l 2
M
le 2
oa o
e
M=
oa =
M o 1786.938 kN-m
2
M
Ms
2
s 837.5 837.5
= s 0.6 += +
M oa 1786.938
3 0.6 3
M oa 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
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object interacting axial and bending strengths are tested in this
example.
Mx
N
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m
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
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
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 ,major 837.5 kN-m
M r 33 = 837.5kN-m
n 33 =
l
e 33
K f fy
=
6000
(1 250 ) =
43.119
r33 250 139.15 250
2100( n 33 13.5)
= a 33 = 19.141
n 332 15.3 n 33 + 2050
b 33 = 0.5 since cross-section is not a UB or UC section
33 = n 33 + a 33 b 33 = 43.119 + 19.141 0.5 = 52.690
=
33 0.00326( 33 13.5)
= 0.1278 0
33
2 2
52.690
90 + 1 + 33 + 1 + 0.1278
=33 = 90
= 2.145
33
2 2
52.690
2 2
90 90
90 2
c 33 33 1
= 1
33 33
2
90
= 2.145 1 1 = 0.8474
c 33
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 i = 823.11 kN-m
1
bc =
1 0 1 0
3
200
+ 0.4 0.23
2 2 0.9 4385
bc =4.120
=
N oz 4.423 1011 kN
N * N*
M o 33 =
bc M b 33o 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
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
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
E = 205000 MPa
Ys = 275 MPa
y = 1.0 Ys = 275 MPa
Section: UB533x210x92
Ag = 11,700 mm2
D = 533.1 mm, b = 104.65 mm
t = 10.1 mm, T = 15.6 mm
d = D 2t = 533.1 2 10.1 = 501.9 mm
Z33 = 2,072,031.5 mm3
S33 = 2,360,000 mm3
Loadings:
Paxial = 0
wu = (1.4wd + 1.6wl) = 1.4(15) + 1.6(30) = 69 kN/m
Pu = (1.4Pd + 1.6Pl) = 1.4(40) + 1.6(50) = 136 kN
wu l 2 Pu l 69 6.52 136 6.5
Mu = + = +
8 4 8 4
M u = 585.4 kN-m
wu l + Pu 69 6.5 + 136
=Fv =
2 2
Fv = 292.25 kN
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
=
6.71 < =
p 9 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is Class 1.
= 49.69 <=
p 80 , No localized web buckling
Web is Class 1.
Section is Class 1.
Pv 2 = 888.4 kN
M c = 649 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial and moment strengths are tested in this example.
Mx
My
H
A A
Section A-A
H=5m
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
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
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
= 20.81 <=
p 24.6 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is Compact.
= 20.81 <=
p 35.2 , No localized web buckling
Web is compact.
Section is Compact.
= 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
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
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
M c = 68.3kN-m
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
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
Compactness Class 1 Class 1 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: CSA G40.21 Grade 350W
fy = 350 MPa
E = 200,000 MPa
G = 76923 MPa
Section: W410x46
bf = 140 mm, tf = 11.2 mm, d = 404 mm, tw = 7 mm
h = d 2t f = 404 2 11.2 = 381.6 mm
Ag = 5890 mm2
I22 = 5,140,000 mm4
Z33 = 885,000 mm3
J = 192,000 mm4
=
Cw 1.976 1011 mm 6
Section: W410x60
bf = 178 mm, tf = 12.8 mm, d = 408 mm, tw = 7.7 mm
h = d 2t f = 408 2 12.8 = 382.4 mm
Ag = 7580 mm2
I22 = 12,000,000 mm4
Z33= 1,190,000 mm3
J = 328,000 mm4
=
Cw 4.698 1011 mm 6
Member:
L=8m
= 0.9
Loadings:
wf = (1.25wd + 1.5wl) = 1.25(7) + 1.5(15) = 31.25 kN/m
w f L2 31.25 82
=
Mf =
8 8
M f = 250 kN-m
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
145 145
Cl .1
= = = 7.75
Fy 350
W410x46
bf 140
= = = 6.25
2t f 2 11.2
1100 Cf 1100 0
Cl .1 = 1 0.39 = 1 0.39 =58.8
Fy Cy 350 5890 350
W410x46
h 381.6
= = = 54.51
tw 7
Section is Class 1
W410x60
h 382.4
= = = 49.66
tw 7.7
< Cl .1 , No localized web buckling
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 max
2 =
M max 2 + 4 M a 2 + 7 M b 2 + 4 M c 2
2 E
2
M p 33
0.28 0 as M u
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
4 250
2 = 1.008
250 + 4 246.0942 + 7 2502 + 4 246.0942
2
2 = 1.008
2 E
2
1.008
Mu = ( 2 10 )
2
5
2000 + ( 5.14 10 )(197.6 10 )
6 9
2000
=
M u 537.82 106 N-mm = 537.82 kN-m
M p 33
M r=
33 1.15M p 33 1 0.28 M p 33
Mu
309.75
M r 33 = 1.15 0.9 309.75 1 0.28 = 268.89 kN-m < 278.775 kN-m
537.82
M r 33 = 268.89 kN-m
2 = 1.032
2 E
2
1.032
Mu = ( 2 10 )
2
5
4000 + (12 10 )( 469.8 10 )
6 9
4000
=
M u 362.06 106 N-mm = 362.06 kN-m
M p 33
M r=
33 1.15M p 33 1 0.28 M p 33
Mu
416.5
M r 33 = 1.15 0.9 416.5 1 0.28
362.06
M r 33 = 292.23kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial and moment strengths are tested in this example.
A A
3.7 m
W310x118
Mxf = 300 kN-m
Section A-A
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
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
fy = 345 MPa
E = 200,000 MPa
G = 76923.08 MPa
Section: W310x118
Ag = 15000 mm2
r33 = 135.4006 mm, r22 = 77.5457 mm
I22 = 90,200,000 mm4
Z33 = 1,950,000 mm3
J = 1,600,000 mm4
=
Cw 1.966 1012 mm 6
ro 2 = 24346.658 mm 2
Member:
lz= le33 = le22 = 3700 mm (unbraced length)
kz=k33 = k22 =1.0
=0.9
Loadings:
C f = 2000 kN
= =
Ma M xf ,top 200 kN-m
= =
Mb M xf ,bottom 300 kN-m
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
145 145
Cl .1= = = 7.81
Fy 345
170 170
Cl .2= = = 9.15
Fy 345
bf 307
=
= = 8.21
2t f 2 18.7
Cl .1 < < Cl .2 ,
Flange is Class 2.
h 276.6
= = = 23.24
tw 11.9
< Cl .1 ,
Web is Class 1.
Section is Class 2
( ) ( )
21.34
Cr = Ag Fy 1 + 2n n = 0.9 15000 345 1 + 0.6308 1.34
Cr = 3489.5 kN
2 E 2 2 105
=Fey = = 867 MPa
1 3700
2 2
k22l22
r22 77.5457
2 EC 1
=Fez w
+ GJ
(k l ) 2
Ag ro 2
zz
2 2 105 1.966 1012 1
= Fez + 76923.08 1.6 106
(1 3700 )
2
15000 24347
FeZ = 1113.222 MPa
=
Fe min ( Fex , Fey , Fez=) F=
ey 867 MPa
1 1
( ) ( )
Cr = Ag Fe 1 + 2 n n = 0.9 15000 867 1 + 0.630821.34 1.34
So 2 =2.5
2
2 E
=Mu EI 22GJ + I 22Cw
l22 l22
2
2.5 2 105
=
Mu 2 105 9.02 107 76923.08 1.6 106 + 9.02 10 1.966 10
7 12
3700 3700
M u = 3163.117 kN-m
M p 33
M r=
33 1.15M p 33 1 0.28 M p 33
Mu
672.75
M r 33 = 1.15 0.9 672.75 1 0.28 0.9 672.75
3163.117
=
M r 33 654.830 605.475
M r 33 = 605.5 kN-m
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-
14 steel frame design code. The moment and shear strengths are compared with
Handbook of Steel construction (9th Edition) results.
L = 8.0 m
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
Compactness Class 1 Class 1 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: CSA G40.21 Grade 350W
fy = 350 MPa
E = 200,000 MPa
G = 76923 MPa
Section: W410x46
bf = 140 mm, tf = 11.2 mm, d = 404 mm, tw = 7 mm
h = d 2t f = 404 2 11.2 = 381.6 mm
Ag = 5890 mm2
I22 = 5,140,000 mm4
Z33 = 885,000 mm3
J = 192,000 mm4
=
Cw 1.976 1011 mm 6
Section: W410x60
bf = 178 mm, tf = 12.8 mm, d = 408 mm, tw = 7.7 mm
h = d 2t f = 408 2 12.8 = 382.4 mm
Ag = 7580 mm2
I22 = 12,000,000 mm4
Z33= 1,190,000 mm3
J = 328,000 mm4
=
Cw 4.698 1011 mm 6
Member:
L=8m
= 0.9
Loadings:
wf = (1.25wd + 1.5wl) = 1.25(7) + 1.5(15) = 31.25 kN/m
w f L2 31.25 82
=
Mf =
8 8
M f = 250 kN-m
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
145 145
Cl .1
= = = 7.75
Fy 350
W410x46
bf 140
= = = 6.25
2t f 2 11.2
1100 Cf 1100 0
Cl .1 = 1 0.39 = 1 0.39 =58.8
Fy Cy 350 5890 350
W410x46
h 381.6
= = = 54.51
tw 7
Section is Class 1
W410x60
h 382.4
= = = 49.66
tw 7.7
< Cl .1 , No localized web buckling
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 max
2 =
M max 2 + 4 M a 2 + 7 M b 2 + 4 M c 2
2 E
2
M p 33
0.28 0 as M u
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
4 250
2 = 1.008
250 + 4 246.0942 + 7 2502 + 4 246.0942
2
2 = 1.008
2 E
2
1.008
Mu = ( 2 10 )
2
5
2000 + ( 5.14 10 )(197.6 10 )
6 9
2000
=
M u 537.82 106 N-mm = 537.82 kN-m
M p 33
M r=
33 1.15M p 33 1 0.28 M p 33
Mu
309.75
M r 33 = 1.15 0.9 309.75 1 0.28 = 268.89 kN-m < 278.775 kN-m
537.82
M r 33 = 268.89 kN-m
2 = 1.032
2 E
2
1.032
Mu = ( 2 10 )
2
5
4000 + (12 10 )( 469.8 10 )
6 9
4000
=
M u 362.06 106 N-mm = 362.06 kN-m
M p 33
M r=
33 1.15M p 33 1 0.28 M p 33
Mu
416.5
M r 33 = 1.15 0.9 416.5 1 0.28
362.06
M r 33 = 292.23kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial and moment strengths are tested in this example.
A A
3.7 m
W310x118
Mxf = 300 kN-m
Section A-A
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
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
fy = 345 MPa
E = 200,000 MPa
G = 76923.08 MPa
Section: W310x118
Ag = 15000 mm2
r33 = 135.4006 mm, r22 = 77.5457 mm
I22 = 90,200,000 mm4
Z33 = 1,950,000 mm3
J = 1,600,000 mm4
=
Cw 1.966 1012 mm 6
ro 2 = 24346.658 mm 2
Member:
lz= le33 = le22 = 3700 mm (unbraced length)
kz=k33 = k22 =1.0
=0.9
Loadings:
C f = 2000 kN
= =
Ma M xf ,top 200 kN-m
= =
Mb M xf ,bottom 300 kN-m
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
145 145
Cl .1= = = 7.81
Fy 345
170 170
Cl .2= = = 9.15
Fy 345
bf 307
=
= = 8.21
2t f 2 18.7
Cl .1 < < Cl .2 ,
Flange is Class 2.
h 276.6
= = = 23.24
tw 11.9
< Cl .1 ,
Web is Class 1.
Section is Class 2
( ) ( )
21.34
Cr = Ag Fy 1 + 2n n = 0.9 15000 345 1 + 0.6308 1.34
Cr = 3489.5 kN
2 E 2 2 105
=Fey = = 867 MPa
1 3700
2 2
k22l22
r22 77.5457
2 EC 1
=Fez w
+ GJ
(k l ) 2
Ag ro 2
zz
2 2 105 1.966 1012 1
= Fez + 76923.08 1.6 106
(1 3700 )
2
15000 24347
FeZ = 1113.222 MPa
=
Fe min ( Fex , Fey , Fez=) F=
ey 867 MPa
1 1
( ) ( )
Cr = Ag Fe 1 + 2 n n = 0.9 15000 867 1 + 0.630821.34 1.34
So 2 =2.5
2
2 E
=Mu EI 22GJ + I 22Cw
l22 l22
2
2.5 2 105
=
Mu 2 105 9.02 107 76923.08 1.6 106 + 9.02 10 1.966 10
7 12
3700 3700
M u = 3163.117 kN-m
M p 33
M r=
33 1.15M p 33 1 0.28 M p 33
Mu
672.75
M r 33 = 1.15 0.9 672.75 1 0.28 0.9 672.75
3163.117
=
M r 33 654.830 605.475
M r 33 = 605.5 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example considering in-plane
behavior only.
NEd
My,Ed
L
A A
Section A-A
L = 3.5 m
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.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: S235
fy = 235 MPa
E = 210,000 MPa
G = 80,770 MPa
Section: IPE 200
A = 2848 mm2
h = 200 mm, bf = 100 mm, tf = 8.5 mm, tw = 5.6 mm, r = 12 mm
hw = h 2t f = 200 2 85 = 183mm
b f tw 2r 100 5.6 2 12
=c = = 35.2 mm
2 2
Iyy = 19,430,000 mm4
Wel,y = 194,300 mm3
Wpl,y = 220,600 mm3
Member:
Lyy = Lzz = 3,500 mm (unbraced length)
M 0 =
1
M1 =
1
y = 0.21
Loadings:
N Ed = 210, 000 N
M Ed , y ,Left = 0 N-m
Section Compactness:
235 235
= = = 1
fy 235
1 N Ed
1 =
1 1
2 2htw f y
1 210, 000
=
1 = 0.6737
2 2 200 5.6 235
=
e 4.14 < =
cl .1 13.36
So Flange is Class 1 in combined bending and compression
d 183
e = = = 28.39
tw 5.6
=
e 32.68 < =
cl .1 51.05
So Web is Class 1 in combined bending and compression
y 0.5 1 + y ( y 0.2 ) + =
= 2
y
0.5 1 + 0.21 ( 0.451 0.2 ) + 0.451
=2
0.628
1 1
=
y = = 0.939 1
y y ( y ) (
+ 2 2 0.628 + 0.6282 0.4512
)
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
W pl , y 220.6 106
=
wy = = 1.135 1.5
Wel , y 194.3 106
Cmo Factor
M Ed , y ,right 0
=
y = = 0
M Ed , y ,left 43 103
1.6 N
1 + ( wy 1) 2
1.6
C yy = Cmy 2 22 Cmy 2 y 2 Ed bLT
wy wy N c , Rk
M1
1.6 1.6 210 10
3
1 + (1.135 1) 2
C yy = 0.7822 0.451 0.7822 0.4512 0
1.135 669 10
3
1.135
1.0
N Ed 210 103
=
D / CAxial =
N c , Rk 669 103
y 0.939
M1 1
D / CAxial = 0.334
Cmy M Ed , y ,right 0.782 43 10 3
D / CBending =
y =
0.996
210 10
3
51.8 10 3
1 N Ed C M pl , y , Rk 1 3
1.061
N cr , y yy M 1 3287 10 1
D / CBending = 0.646
D / CTotal = 0.980
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
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
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: S275 Steel
fy = 275 MPa
E = 210000 MPa
Section: 406x178x74 UB
A = 9450 mm2
b = 179.5 mm, tf = 16 mm, h = 412.8 mm, tw = 9.5 mm, r = 10.2 mm
hw = h 2t f = 412.8 2 16 = 380.8 mm
Loadings:
N Ed = 0 kN
N = 1050 kN @ mid-span
Results in the following internal forces:
VEd = 525 kN
M Ed = 367.5 kN-m
Section Compactness:
235 235
= = = 0.924
fy 275
=
e 4.68 < =
cl .1 8.32
So Flange is Class 1 in pure compression
So Av = 4341mm 2
Av f y 4341 275
= = = 689, 245 N
M 0 3 1.0 3
V pl , Rd
V pl , Rd = 689.2 kN
M c , y , Rd = 412.8 kN-m
M v , y , Rd = 386.8 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.
A M
A
L Section A-A
L = 0.4 m
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
CONCLUSION
The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
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
hw = h 2t f = 467.2 2 19.6 = 428 mm
Loadings:
P = 1400 kN axial load
Results in the following internal forces:
N Ed = 1400 kN
M = 200 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
=
e 4.11 < =
cl .1 9
So Flange is Class 1 in combined bending and compression
d 407.6
e = = = 35.75
tw 11.4
=
e 35.75 > =
cl .1 33.00
456 456 1
= = = 38.00
13 1 13 1 1
cl .2
=
e 35.75 <
= cl .2 38.00
N pl , Rd = 2937.5 kN
Axial Reduction
N Ed =
1400kN > 0.25 N pl , Rd =
0.25 2937.5 =
734.4 kN
N Ed 1400
=n = = 0.48
N pl , Rd 2937.5
A 2bt f 12,500 2 192.8 19.6
=a = = 0.40
A 12,500
1 n 1 0.48
M N= M pl , y , Rd = 524.5
1 0.5a 1 0.5 0.4
, y , Rd
M N , y , Rd = 342.2 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.
NEd
L
A A
Section A-A
L = 3m
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.
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
Loadings:
N Ed = 1 kN
Section Compactness:
250 250
= = = 1
fy 250
b 70
e = = = 4.93
t f 14.2
=
e 4.93 <
= p 8.40
So Flange is Plastic in compression
d 318
e = = = 39.26
tw 8.1
=
e 39.26 < =
s 42
So Web is Plastic in compression
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
= 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
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
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.
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
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
CONCLUSION
The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: Fe 250
E = 200,000 MPa
G = 76,923 MPa
fy = 250 MPa
Loadings:
N Ed = 0 kN
= 48.75 kN/m
Section Compactness:
250 250
= = = 1
fy 250
b 90
e = = = 6.38
t f 14.1
=
e 6.38 <
= p 9.40
So Flange is Plastic in pure bending
Vd = 603.59 kN
From Roark & Young, 5th Ed., 1975, Table 21, Item 7, pg.302
t1= t2= t f and b1= b2= b f for symmetric sections
2 EI y 2 EI w
=M cr C1 GI +
( KL ) ( KL )
2 t 2
M cr = 215,936,919.3 N-mm
LT =
0.21
b =1.0
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 = 157.93kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.
Z-Z
L N
A A
Mz,bot
My,bot Section A-A
L=4m
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%
CONCLUSION
The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
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
Member:
Ly = Lz = 4,000 mm (unbraced length)
M 0 = 1.1
Loadings:
P = 2500 kN
Vz = 25 kN
Vy = 175 kN
=
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
Section is Plastic.
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
=M dy 325.65 kN m
Vy =
175 kN < 0.6VPy =
0.6 2961.6 =
1777 kN No shear reduction is needed.
=
M ndz 614.2 kN m < 897.46 kN m
=
M ndy 308.0 kN m
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
Pdz = 6511 kN
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
2 EI y 2 EI w
=M cr C1 GI +
( KL ) ( KL )
2 t 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
=
M dLTB 886.84 kN m
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
K LT = 0.920
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
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The design flexural strengths are checked for the beam shown below. The beam
is loaded with a uniform load of 6.5 kN/m (D) and 11 kN/m (L). The flexural
moment capacity is checked for three unsupported lengths in the weak direction,
Lb = 1.75 m, 4 m and 12 m.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
E = 205,000 MPa, Fy = 345 MPa
Section: W460x74
bf = 191 mm, tf = 14.5 mm, d = 457 mm, tw = 9 mm
h = d 2t f = 457 2 14.5 = 428 mm
I y Cw 1670 824296.4
=rts = = 50.45 mm
S33 1457.3
Loadings:
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 1.2(6.5) + 1.6(11) = 25.4 kN/m
Mu =
wu L2
8
= 25.4 122/8 = 457.2 kN-m
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
bf 191
= = = 6.586
2t f 2 14.5
E 205, 000
= p 0.38
= 0.38 = 9.263
Fy 345
E 205, 000
= p 3.76
= 3.76 = 91.654
Fy 345
Section is Compact.
Lr = 5.25 m
12.5M max
Cb = Rm 3.0 Eqn. 1
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
Where MA = first quarter-span moment, MB = mid-span moment, MC = second quarter-span
moment.
The required moments for Eqn. 1 can be calculated as a percentage of the maximum mid-span
moment. Since the loading is uniform and the resulting moment is symmetric:
2
1 L
M A = MC = 1 b
4 L
Cb = 1.002
=
M n =
M p 572.7 kN-m
b M=
n 0.9 572.7
b M n = 515.43 kN-m
M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1 L 1 4
MA =
MC =
1 b =
1 = 0.972
4 L 4 12
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 )
Cb = 1.014
Lb L p
M n = C b M p (M p 0.7 Fy S 33 ) Mp
L L
r p
4.00 1.80
=M n 1.014 572.7 ( 572.7 0.7 0.345 1457.3) = 437.97 kN-m
5.25 1.80
b M=
n 0.9 437.97
b M n = 394.2 kN-m
Cb = 1.136
2
Cb 2 E Jc Lb
=Fcr 2
1 + 0.078
Lb S33 ho rts
rts
1.136 2 205, 000 51.6 1
2
12000
Fcr = 1 + 0.078 =
86.5 MPa
12000
2
1457.3 44.25 50.45
50.45
M n = Fcr S 33 M p
Mn =
86.5 1457.3 =
126.056kN-m
b M=
n 0.9 126.056
b M n = 113.45 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A demand capacity ratio is calculated for the built-up, ASTM A572 grade 50,
column shown below. An axial load of 300 kips (D) and 900 kips (L) is applied to
a simply supported column with a height of 5m.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with the results from
ETABS.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Compactness Slender Slender 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
E = 205,000 MPa, Fy =345 MPa
Cw = 1443463.1 cm 6
bt 3
=J 3 216.1 cm4
=
Member:
K = 1.0 for a pinned-pinned condition
L=5m
Loadings:
Section Compactness:
Check for slender elements using Specification KBC 2009:
-3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
-4
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
2 EC w 1
Fe = + GJ
(K z L ) Ix + Iy
2
Fe = 220 MPa
So
QFy
1.0( 345 )
f = Fcr =Q 0.658 Fy =1.0 0.658 220 345 =178.98 MPa
Fe
E 0.34 E
be = 1.92t1 b, where b = h
f (b t ) f
205, 000 0.34 205, 000
be = 1.92 ( 7 ) 1 359.12 mm
178.98 ( 382 7 ) 178.98
=be 359.12 mm 382 mm
-5
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
Aeff 12663.84
=
Qa= = 0.9875
A 12824
=Q Q=
s Qa (1.00 )( 0.9875
= ) 0.9875
Critical Buckling Stress
Determine whether Specification Equation E7-2 or E7-3 applies
E KL
When 4.71
QFy r
QFy
0.9875( 345 )
=Fcr Q 0.658
= Fe
Fy 0.9875 0.658 220= 345 178.2 MPa
-6
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
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
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
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: S275 Steel
E = 210000 MPa
fy = 235 MPa
Section: 457x191x98 UB
A = 12,500 mm2
b = 192.8 mm, tf = 19.6 mm, h = 467.2 mm, tw = 11.4 mm, r = 0 mm
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
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
VEd = 500 kN
M y , Ed = 200 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
=
e 4.63 < =
cl .1 9
So Flange is Class 1 in combined bending and compression
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
N c , Rd = 2797.6 kN
AV , y = 5,165.7 mm 2
fy 235
=
Vc , Rd , y = Avy 5,165.7
M 0 3 1.05 3
Vc , Rd , y = 667.5 kN
=1.0
M c , y , Rd = 499.1kN-m
2
2V 2 500 2
= Ed 1= 1= 0.2482
V 667.5
c , Rd
Av 2 0.2482 4879.22
W
pl , y 4t yk f 2, 230, 000 235
w 4 11.4
=M y ,V , Rd = M y ,c , Rd
M 0 1.05
M V ,r , Rd = 470.1kN-m
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
D
= 0.644 (Governs)
C
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.
Z-Z
L P
A A
Mz,bot
My,bot Section A-A
L = 0.4 m
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
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
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
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
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
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.
N c , Rd = 2, 797.6 kN
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
fy 235
=
Vc , z , Rd = Avy 7, 620.8
M 0 3 1.05 3
Vc , z , Rd = 984.7 kN
=1.0
M c , y , Rd = 499.1kN-m
M c , z , Rd = 84.8 kN-m
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
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
M N , y , Rd = 310.8 kN-m
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
( )
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 byy , Rd = 2, 797.6 kN
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
=
z 1.0362 > 1.0, so=
z 1.0
N bzz , Rd = 2, 797.6 kN
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
2 EI z I w ( Lcr , z ) GIT
2
M cr =
+
( cr , z ) z
2 EI z
2
L I
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 0.5 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
D
= 2.044 (Governs)
C
k yz = 0.479
k zy = 0.698
k zz = 0.798
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m
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.
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 tw ) f y 350 20 250
=e = = 5.89
2tf 250 2 28 250
Flange is under uniform compression, so:
ep = 9, ey = 16, ew = 90
=
e 5.89 < =
ep 9 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is compact
h fy 331 250
=e = = 16.55
tw 250 20 250
Web is under uniform compression, so:
ep = 30, ey = 45, ew = 180
=
e 16.55 <=
ep 30 , No localized web buckling
Web is compact.
Section is Compact.
N s = 6275kN
=
le 22 K f fy
=
6000
(1 250=
) 67.216
n 22
r22 250 89.264 250
2100( n 22 13.5)
= a 22 = 20.363
n 22 2 15.3 n 22 + 2050
b 22 =
0.5 since cross-section is not a UB or UC section
=
22 0.00326( 22 13.5)
= 0.2083 0
22
2 2
77.398
+ 1 + 22 + 1 + 0.2083
= 22 90
= 90
= 1.317
22
2 2
77.398
2 2
90 90
90 2
c 22 22 1
= 1
22 22
2
90
= 1.317 1 1 = 0.6988
c 22
1.317 77.398
N c 22 =
c 22 N s N s
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object bending strengths are tested in this example.
Mx
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m
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.
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
This leads to:
M 2 * = 250 kN-m
M 3 * = 500 kN-m
M 4 * = 750 kN-m
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
(b f tw ) f y 350 20 250
=e = = 5.89
2tf 250 2 28 250
=
e 5.89 < =
ep 9 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is compact
Localized Buckling for Web:
h fy 331 250
=e = = 16.55
tw 250 20 250
Web is under bending, so:
ep = 82, ey = 115, ew = 180
=
e 16.55 <=
ep 30 , No localized web buckling
Web is compact.
Section is Compact.
Z=
e 33 Z=
c 33 3,350, 000 mm 2
M=
s 33 = f y Z=
M s ,major e 33 250 3,350, 000 /10002
= =
M s 33 M s ,major 837.5 kN-m
kr = 1 (Program default)
2 EI 22 2 EI w
M= =
M GJ +
le 2
oa o 2
le
M=
oa =
M o 1786.938 kN-m
2
M
Ms
2
s 837.5 837.5
= s 0.6 += +
M oa 1786.938 1786.938
3 0.6 3
M oa
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
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object interacting axial and bending strengths are tested in this
example.
Mx
N
L
A A
Section A-A
L=6m
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.
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
M r 33 = 837.5kN-m
=
le 33 K f fy
=
6000
(1 250=
) 43.119
n 33
r33 250 139.15 250
2100( n 33 13.5)
= a 33 = 19.141
n 332 15.3 n 33 + 2050
b 33 =
0.5 since cross-section is not a UB or UC section
=
33 0.00326( 33 13.5)
= 0.1278 0
33
2 2
52.690
90 + 1 + 33 + 1 + 0.1278
=33 = 90
= 2.145
33
2 2
52.690
2 2
90 90
90 2
c 33 33 1
= 1
33 33
2
1 90
= 2.145 1 = 0.8474
c 33
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 i = 823.11 kN-m
=
N oz 4.423 1011 kN
N * N*
M o 33 =
bc M b 33o 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
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The flexural and shear design of a rectangular concrete beam is calculated in this
example.
A 10"
CL
2.5" 13.5"
A
Section A-A
10' = 120"
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.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
= 0.9, Ag = 160 sq-in
200
As,min = bw d = 0.450 sq-in (Govern)
fy
3 f c'
= bw d = 0.427 sq-in
fy
f c 4000
1 =
0.85 0.05 =0.85
1000
0.003
=cmax = d 5.0625 in
0.003 + 0.005
amax = 1cmax = 4.303 in
Combo1
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 9.736 k/ft
Mu =
wu l 2
8
= 9.736 102/8 = 121.7 k-ft = 1460.4 k-in
Mu 1460.4
As = =
a 0.9 60 (13.5 4.183 / 2 )
fy d
2
As = 2.37 sq-in
Shear Design
The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:
= 0.75
Check the limit of f c :
Vs = 8 f c bd = 51.229 k
Av b bw 3
= max 50
w
, f c
s min f yt f yt 4
else if Vu > Vmax,
a failure condition is declared.
Combo1
Vu = 9.736 (5-13.5/12) = 37.727 k
(Vc =
/ 2 ) 6.4035 k =
Vu 37.727 k V
=max 64.036 k
Av 10 10 3
= max 50 , 4, 000
s min 60, 000 60, 000 4
Av in 2
= =
max {0.0083, 0.0079} 0.0083
s min in
Av (Vu Vc ) in 2 in 2
= = 0.041 = 0.492
s f ys d in ft
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
Muy=332k-ft 22"
A A
2.5" 14"
10
Section A-A
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Column Demand/Capacity Ratio 1.000 1.00 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.
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 = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc = 0.85 f c' ab = 0.85 4 14a = 47.6a
( )
Cs = As' f y - 0.85 f c' = 4 ( 60 - 0.85 4 ) = 226.4 kips
Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).
(
T = As f s = 4 f s f s < f y )
Pn = 47.6a + 226.4 - 4 f s (Eqn. 1)
a '
Pn =
1
(
Cc d - 2 + Cs d - d )
e'
The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 8.5 inch
e' = e + d " = 10 + 8.5 = 18.5 inch.
1 a
Pn = 47.6a 19.5 - + 226.4 (19.5 - 2.5 )
18.5 2
Substitute in Eqn. 2:
Pn = 50.17 11.43 - 1.29 (11.43) + 208 = 612.9 kips
2
19.5 -13.45
fs = 87 = 39.13 ksi
13.45
s = t = f s Es = 0.00135
8) Calculate ,
dt = d = 19.5 inch, c = 13.45 inch
19.45 -13.45
t (at the tension reinforcement level) = 0.003 = 0.00135
13.45
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The flexural and shear design of a rectangular concrete beam is calculated in this
example.
A 10"
CL
2.5" 13.5"
A
Section A-A
10' = 120"
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.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
= 0.9, Ag = 160 sq-in
200
As,min = bw d = 0.450 sq-in (Govern)
fy
3 f c'
= bw d = 0.427 sq-in
fy
f c 4000
1 =
0.85 0.05 =0.85
1000
0.003
=cmax = d 5.0625 in
0.003 + 0.005
amax = 1cmax = 4.303 in
Combo1
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 9.736 k/ft
Mu =
wu l 2
8
= 9.736 102/8 = 121.7 k-ft = 1460.4 k-in
Mu 1460.4
As = =
a 0.9 60 (13.5 4.183 / 2 )
fy d
2
As = 2.37 sq-in
Shear Design
The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:
= 0.75
Check the limit of f c :
Vs = 8 f c bd = 51.229 k
Av b bw 3
= max 50
w
, f c
s min f yt f yt 4
else if Vu > Vmax,
a failure condition is declared.
Combo1
Vu = 9.736 (5-13.5/12) = 37.727 k
(Vc =
/ 2 ) 6.4035 k =
Vu 37.727 k V
=max 64.036 k
Av 10 10 3
= max 50 , 4, 000
s min 60, 000 60, 000 4
Av in 2
= =
max {0.0083, 0.0079} 0.0083
s min in
Av (Vu Vc ) in 2 in 2
= = 0.041 = 0.492
s f ys d in ft
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
Muy=332k-ft 22"
A A
2.5" 14"
10
Section A-A
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Column Demand/Capacity Ratio 1.000 1.00 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.
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 = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc = 0.85 f c' ab = 0.85 4 14a = 47.6a
( )
Cs = As' f y - 0.85 f c' = 4 ( 60 - 0.85 4 ) = 226.4 kips
Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).
(
T = As f s = 4 f s f s < f y )
Pn = 47.6a + 226.4 - 4 f s (Eqn. 1)
a '
Pn =
1
(
Cc d - 2 + Cs d - d )
e'
The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 8.5 inch
e' = e + d " = 10 + 8.5 = 18.5 inch.
1 a
Pn = 47.6a 19.5 - + 226.4 (19.5 - 2.5 )
18.5 2
Substitute in Eqn. 2:
Pn = 50.17 11.43 - 1.29 (11.43) + 208 = 612.9 kips
2
19.5 -13.45
fs = 87 = 39.13 ksi
13.45
s = t = f s Es = 0.00135
8) Calculate ,
dt = d = 19.5 inch, c = 13.45 inch
19.45 -13.45
t (at the tension reinforcement level) = 0.003 = 0.00135
13.45
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The flexural and shear design of a rectangular concrete beam is calculated in this
example.
A 10"
CL
2.5" 13.5"
A
Section A-A
10' = 120"
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress
distribution described in Example 6.1 in Notes on ACI 318-14 Building Code.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match for the flexural and the shear
reinforcing.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
= 0.9, Ag = 160 sq-in
200
As,min = bw d = 0.450 sq-in (Govern)
fy
3 f c'
= bw d = 0.427 sq-in
fy
f c 4000
1 =
0.85 0.05 =0.85
1000
0.003
=cmax = d 5.0625 in
0.003 + 0.005
amax = 1cmax = 4.303 in
Combo1
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 9.736 k/ft
Mu =
wu l 2
8
= 9.736 102/8 = 121.7 k-ft = 1460.4 k-in
Mu 1460.4
As = =
a 0.9 60 (13.5 4.183 / 2 )
fy d
2
As = 2.37 sq-in
Shear Design
The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:
= 0.75
Check the limit of f c :
Vs = 8 f c bd = 51.229 k
Av b bw 3
= max 50
w
, f c
s min f yt f yt 4
else if Vu > Vmax,
a failure condition is declared.
Combo1
Vu = 9.736 (5-13.5/12) = 37.727 k
(Vc =
/ 2 ) 6.4035 k =
Vu 37.727 k V
=max 64.036 k
Av 10 10 3
= max 50 , 4, 000
s min 60, 000 60, 000 4
Av in 2
= =
max {0.0083, 0.0079} 0.0083
s min in
Av (Vu Vc ) in 2 in 2
= = 0.041 = 0.492
s f ys d in ft
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
Muy=332k-ft 22"
A A
2.5" 14"
10
Section A-A
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Column Demand/Capacity Ratio 1.000 1.00 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.
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 = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc = 0.85 f c' ab = 0.85 4 14a = 47.6a
( )
Cs = As' f y - 0.85 f c' = 4 ( 60 - 0.85 4 ) = 226.4 kips
Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).
(
T = As f s = 4 f s f s < f y )
Pn = 47.6a + 226.4 - 4 f s (Eqn. 1)
a '
Pn =
1
(
Cc d - 2 + Cs d - d )
e'
The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 8.5 inch
e' = e + d " = 10 + 8.5 = 18.5 inch.
1 a
Pn = 47.6a 19.5 - + 226.4 (19.5 - 2.5 )
18.5 2
Substitute in Eqn. 2:
Pn = 50.17 11.43 - 1.29 (11.43) + 208 = 612.9 kips
2
19.5 -13.45
fs = 87 = 39.13 ksi
13.45
s = t = f s Es = 0.00135
8) Calculate ,
dt = d = 19.5 inch, c = 13.45 inch
19.45 -13.45
t (at the tension reinforcement level) = 0.003 = 0.00135
13.45
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.
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.
600 mm
75 mm 100 mm
500 mm
75 mm
300 mm
Beam Section
Shear Force
Bending Moment
Dead load, Pd = 30 kN
Live load, Pl = 130 kN
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.
Av
Reinforcement Area,
s
(sq-cm/m)
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match for the flexural and the shear
reinforcing.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
= 0.8 for bending
0.67 2 0.85, where 2 = 1.0 0.003 f c ' = 0.91 , use 2 = 0.85
amax =
= ku d 0.840.36=
425 128.52 mm
D f ct , f
2
Ast .min = b bw d
d f sy
where for L- and T-Sections with the web in tension:
D= h= 500 mm
1/4
bf D bf
b = 0.20 + 1 0.4 s 0.18 0.20 = 0.2378
bw D bw
= =
f 'ct , f 0.5 =
f 'c 0.5 30 3.3 MPa
= f=
f sy y 460 MPa 500 MPa
D f ct , f
2
Ast .min = 0.2378 bd
d f sy
= 0.2378 (500/425)2 3.3/460 300425
= 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:
2M *
a =
d d2 = 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:
2 f c ( b f bw )min ( Ds , amax ) =
Cf = 765 kN
Therefore,
C f 765
=
As1 = = 1663.043 mm 2
f sy 460
min ( Ds , amax )
Muf =
C f d = 229.5 kN-m
2
Again, the value for is 0.80 by default. Therefore, the balance of the
moment, M* to be carried by the web is:
M=
uw M * Muf = 462 229.5 = 232.5
The web is a rectangular section of dimensions bw and d, for which the design
depth of the compression block is recalculated as:
2 M uw
a1 =
d d2 = 101.5118 mm
2 f c bw
M uw
As 2 = = 1688.186 mm2
a
f sy d 1
2
Shear Design
= 0.7 for shear
Calculated at the end of the beam, so M=0 and Ast = 0.
The shear force carried by the concrete, Vuc, is calculated as:
13
A
Vuc = 123bv d o f cv st = 0 kN
bv d o
where,
d
=
1 1.11.6 o 1.1 =1.2925,
1000
2 = 1 since no significant axial load is present
3 = 1
bv = bw = 300mm as there are no grouted ducts
do = d = 425 mm
The shear force is limited to a maximum of:
Vu .max = 0.2 f c bd o = 765 kN
And the beam must have a minimum shear force capacity of:
Vu .min =
Vuc + 0.6bw d o =
0 + 0.6300425 =
77 kN
=
V * 231 kN > V=
uc / 2 0 , so reinforcement is needed.
=
V * 231 kN V=
u .max 535.5 kN , so concrete crushing does not occur.
Asv bw f 'c bv mm 2
= =
max 0.35 , 0.06 max {228.26, 214.33}
s min f sy f sy m
Asv
2
mm
= 228.26
s min m
COMB130
Since V
=u .min 53.55 kN=
< V * 231 kN V=
u .max 535.5 kN
=
Asv (
V * Vuc A )
sv
s f sy d o cot v s min
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 (
0.7460425cot 35.52o ) m s min m
Asv cm 2
= 12.05
s m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
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
Example Description
The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this
example.
60 mm 550 mm
A
Section A-A
6m
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
Design Moment, Mu (kN-m) 165.02 165.02 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
m, steel = 1.15
= =
As ,min 0.0013bw h 0.0013=
230550 164.45 mm 2
Shear Design
L2
V=
U U d= 92.04 kN at distance, d, from support
2
VU
v= = 0.8167 MPa
bd
=
0.95 1, so is taken as 1.
d d
fcu 40 MPa (for calculation purposes only) and As is the area of tension
reinforcement.
If (vc + 0.4) < v vmax
Asv (v vc )bw
=
sv 0.87 f yv
=
Asv (=
v vc ) bw ( 0.8167 0.4150 )
= 0.231 sq-mm/mm
sv 0.87 f yv 0.87 460
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
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
= 2174 fs ( fs < f y )
As fs 2500 fs
= T =
s 1.15
N1 =4, 667 a + 971, 014 2174 fs (Eqn. 1)
= =
a 0.9 364 327.6 mm
Substitute in Eqn. 2:
N 2 4917.9 327.6 5.018 ( 327.6 ) + 897,926
2
= = 1,970,500 N
490 364
=fs = 700 242.3 MPa
364
=
s =
t fs Es = 0.0012
250
M = Ne = 1971 = 493 kN-m
1000
365 60
=s ( 0.0035
= ) 0.00292
= > y 0.0023
365
N = 1971 kN
M = 493 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this
example.
54 mm 600 mm
A
Section A-A
6m
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
Design Moment, Mf (kN-m) 415.00 415.00 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
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
wu l 2
Mf = = 415 kN-m
8
The depth of the compression block is given by:
2M f
a = d d2 = 102.048 mm
1 f 'c c b
Mf
As = = 2466 mm2
a
s f y d
2
4 4
= =
As ,min min =
As ,min , As ,required min 758.95, 2466 758.95 mm
2
3 3
Shear Design
The basic shear strength for rectangular section is computed as,
c = 0.65 for shear
V f = 92.222 (3 - 0.546) = 226.31 kN
Vc = c f c bw dv = 145.45 kN
Av (V f Vc ) tan
= = 0.339 mm2/mm
s s f yt d v
Av
'
fc
= 0.06 b = 0.379 mm2/mm (Govern)
s min fy
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This assumption will
be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis fro a balanced condition, cb:
700 700
cb = dt = ( 490) = 296 mm
700 + f y 700 + 460
Pr = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc = c 1 f c' ab = 0.65 0.805 30 350a = 5494.1a
( )
Cs = 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).
2125 f s ( f s < f y )
T = s As f s = 0.85 2500 f s =
Pr = 5, 494.1a + 926,181 - 2125 f s (Eqn. 1)
a '
Pr =
1
( )
Cc d - 2 + C s d - d
e'
The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 215 mm
e' = e + d " = 250 + 215 = 465 mm
1 a
Pr = 5, 494.1a 490 - + 926,181 ( 490 - 60 )
465 2
2
Pr = 5789.5a - 5.91a + 856, 468.5 (Eqn. 2)
Substitute in Eqn. 2:
Pr = 5789.5 317.7 - 5.91 ( 317.7 ) + 856, 468.5 = 2,099,327.8 N
2
490 - 355
fs = 700 = 266.2 MPa
355
s = t = f s Es = 0.0013
Pr = 2098 kN
M r = 525 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this
example.
54 mm 600 mm
A
Section A-A
6m
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
Design Moment, Mf (kN-m) 415.00 415.00 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
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
wu l 2
Mf = = 415 kN-m
8
The depth of the compression block is given by:
2M f
a = d d2 = 102.048 mm
1 f 'c c b
Mf
As = = 2466 mm2
a
s f y d
2
4 4
= =
As ,min min =
As ,min , As ,required min 758.95, 2466 758.95 mm
2
3 3
Shear Design
The basic shear strength for rectangular section is computed as,
c = 0.65 for shear
V f = 92.222 (3 - 0.546) = 226.31 kN
Vc = c f c bw dv = 145.45 kN
Av (V f Vc ) tan
= = 0.339 mm2/mm
s s f yt d v
Av
'
fc
= 0.06 b = 0.379 mm2/mm (Govern)
s min fy
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3)d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This assumption will
be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis fro a balanced condition, cb:
700 700
cb = dt = ( 490) = 296 mm
700 + f y 700 + 460
Pr = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc = c 1 f c' ab = 0.65 0.805 30 350a = 5494.1a
( )
Cs = 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).
2125 f s ( f s < f y )
T = s As f s = 0.85 2500 f s =
Pr = 5, 494.1a + 926,181 - 2125 f s (Eqn. 1)
a '
Pr =
1
( )
Cc d - 2 + C s d - d
e'
The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 215 mm
e' = e + d " = 250 + 215 = 465 mm
1 a
Pr = 5, 494.1a 490 - + 926,181 ( 490 - 60 )
465 2
2
Pr = 5789.5a - 5.91a + 856, 468.5 (Eqn. 2)
Substitute in Eqn. 2:
Pr = 5789.5 317.7 - 5.91 ( 317.7 ) + 856, 468.5 = 2,099,327.8 N
2
490 - 355
fs = 700 = 266.2 MPa
355
s = t = f s Es = 0.0013
Pr = 2098 kN
M r = 525 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this
example.
60 mm 550 mm
A
Section A-A
6m
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
Method ETABS Hand ETABS Hand ETABS Hand ETABS Hand 0.00%
CEN Default, 165 165 916 916 110 110 249.5 249.5 0.00%
Slovenia,
Sweden, Portugal
Norway 165 165 933 933 110 110 249.5 249.5 0.00%
Singapore 165 165 933 933 110 110 249.5 249.5 0.00%
Finland 165 165 933 933 110 110 249.5 249.5 0.00%
Denmark 165 165 950 950 110 110 249.5 249.5 0.00%
Germany 165 165 933 933 110 110 249.5 249.5 0.00%
Poland 165 165 925 925 110 110 249.5 249.5 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for both of the load combinations:
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
cc = 1.0
k1 = 0.44 k2 = 1.25 ( 0.6 + 0.0014 / cu 2 ) =
k4 = 1.25 k3 = 0.54
f cd = cc f ck / c = 1.0(30)/1.5 = 20 MPa
=
f yd f yk / s = 460/1.15 = 400 Mpa
f=
ywd f yk / s = 460/1.15 = 400 Mpa
COMB1
M =
wu l 2
8
= 36.67 62/8 = 165.0 kN-m
The limiting value of the ratio of the neutral axis depth at the ultimate limit state
to the effective depth, ( x / d )lim , is given as,
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
mlim = 1 = 0.29417
d lim 2 d lim
Shear Design
The shear force demand is given as,
VEd =
= L / 2 110.01 kN
The shear force that can be carried without requiring design shear reinforcement,
where,
200
k=
1+ 2.0 = 1.6389
d
AS 0
1
= = = 0.0 0.02
bd 230490
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
CRd ,c = 0.18 / c =0.12
= =
vmin 0.035k 3/2 fck 1/2 0.4022
The maximum design shear force that can be carried without crushing of the
notional concrete compressive struts,
=VRd ,max cwbzv1 f cd / ( cot + tan )
where,
cw = 1.0
= =
z 0.9 d 441.0 mm
f
v1 = 0.6 1 ck = 0.528
250
vEd
= 0.5sin
= 1
5.33
0.2 f ck (1 f ck / 250 )
where,
VEd
=
vEd = 0.9761
bw d
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
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
= 2174 fs ( fs < f y )
As fs 2500 fs
=
T =
s 1.15
N1 =
7, 000a + 956,521.7 2174 fs (Eqn. 1)
250
= Ne
M = 2374 = 593.5 kN-m
1000
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
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 = 1971 kN
M = 493 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this
example.
37.5 mm 600 mm
A
Section A-A
6m
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.
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 ,min bd = 345.63 sq-mm
fy
COMB1
Mu = 170 kN-m
Vu = 113.33 kN-m
Xu , max = 0.48
d
= 0.3983
xu 1 1 4 m
=
d 2
x
z = d 1 u = 562.5{1 0.42 0.3983}= 468.406
d
M
As = u
= 1006 sq-mm
( fy s ) z
Shear Design
Vu
v = = 0.67161
bd
max = 2.5 for M15 concrete
k = 1.0
= 1 if Pu 0 , Under Tension
100 As
0.15 3
bd
100 As
= 0.596
bd
c = 0.49 From Table 19 of IS 456:2000 code, interpolating between rows.
cd = kc = 0.49
The required shear reinforcement is calculated as follows:
Since v > cd
Asv 0.4b ( v cd ) b 0.4 300 ( 0.67161 0.49 ) 300
= =
max , max ,
s (
y f ) ( f y )
y
( 415 1.15 ) ( 415 1.15 )
Asv mm 2
= =
max {0.333,0.150} 0.333
s mm
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Column Demand/Capacity Ratio 0.997 1.00 0.30%
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an acceptable comparison with the independent
results. The larger variation is due to equivalent rectangular compression block
assumption.
HAND CALCULATION
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 + C s T
where
0.36
Cc = f ck ab = 0.4286 30 350a = 4500a
0.84
A'
(
Cs = s f y - 0.4286 f ck =
s
) 2500
1.15
( 460 - 0.4286 30 ) = 972, 048 N
Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).
= 2174 f s ( f s < f y )
Af 2500 f s
T= s s=
s 1.15
N1 = 4500a + 972, 048 - 2174 f s (Eqn. 1)
Substitute in Eqn. 2:
N 2 = 4742 314.2 - 4.039 ( 314.2 ) + 898,883 = 1,911, 037 N
2
490 - 374
fs = 700 = 217.11 MPa
374
s = t = f s Es = 0.0011
N = 1913 kN
M = 478 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this
example.
60 mm 550 mm
A
Section A-A
6m
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated based on the equivalent rectangular stress
distribution.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for both of the load combinations:
c, concrete = 1.50
cc = 0.85
k1 = 0.44 k2 = 1.25 ( 0.6 + 0.0014 / cu 2 ) =
k4 = 1.25 k3 = 0.54
f cd = cc f ck / c = 0.85(30)/1.5 = 17 MPa
f y 460
f yd = = 400 Mpa
s 1.15
= 1.0 for fck 50 MPa
= 0.8 for fck 50 MPa
f ctm
As ,min = 0.26 bd = 184.5 sq-mm,
f yk
COMB1
M =
wu l 2
8
= 36.67 62/8 = 165.0 kN-m
The limiting value of the ratio of the neutral axis depth at the ultimate limit state
to the effective depth, ( x / d )lim , is given as,
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
mlim = 1 = 0.29417
d lim 2 d lim
Shear Design
The shear force demand is given as,
VEd =
= L / 2 110.0 kN
The shear force that can be carried without requiring design shear reinforcement,
where,
200
k=
1+ 2.0 = 1.6389
d
AS 0
1
= = = 0.0 0.02
bd 230490
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
CRd ,c = 0.18 / c =0.12
= =
vmin 0.035k 3/2 fck 1/2 0.4022
The maximum design shear force that can be carried without crushing of the
notional concrete compressive struts,
cot + cot
= =
VRd ,max zb c f 'cd 297 kN
1 + cot
2
where,
= =
z 0.9 d 441.0 mm
c = 1.0 since there is no axial compression
f 'cd = 0.5 f cd
VEd
=
vEd = 0.9761
bw d
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
1) Because e = 250 mm < (2/3) d = 327 mm, assume compression failure. This assumption will
be checked later. Calculate the distance to the neutral axis for a balanced condition, cb:
700 700
cb = dt = ( 490) = 296 mm
700 + f y 700 + 460
N = Cc + C s T
where
f ck 0.85 30
Cc = ab = 350a = 5950a
c 1.5
As' f ck 2500 0.85 30
fy - = 1.5
Cs = 460 - = 963, 043 N
s c 1.15
Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).
= 2174 f s ( f s < f y )
Af 2500 f s
T= s s=
s 1.15
N1 = 5,950a + 963, 043 - 2174 f s (Eqn. 1)
Substitute in Eqn. 2:
N 2 = 6270 292 - 6.3978 ( 292 ) + 890,556 = 2,175,893 N
2
490 - 365
fs = 700 = 240.0 MPa
365
s = t = f s Es = 0.0012
250
M = Ne = 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
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the flexural and shear design. A simple-
span, 6-m-long, 300-mm-wide, and 560-mm-deep beam is modeled. The beam is
shown in Figure 1. The computational model uses a finite element mesh of frame
elements, automatically generated. The maximum element size has been
specified to be 200 mm. The beam is supported by joint restraints that have no
rotational stiffness. One end of the beam has no longitudinal stiffness.
The beam is loaded with symmetric third-point loading. One dead load case
(DL50) and one live load case (LL130) with only symmetric third-point loads of
magnitudes 50, and 130 kN, respectively, are defined in the model. One load
combination (COMB130) is defined using the KBC 2009 load combination
factors of 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is analyzed for
both of those load cases and the load combinations.
Dead load, Pd = 50 kN
Live load, Pl = 130 kN
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.
Av
Reinforcement Area,
s
(sq-mm/m)
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
b = 0.85
=
1 0.85 .007(30 28)
= 0.836 for =
f ck 30MPa,
c
cmax = d = 187.5 mm
c + f y Es
amax = 1cmax= 156.75 mm
=
Ac b=
d 150, 000 mm 2
0.25 f ck
Ac = 446.5
fy
As ,min = max mm2
1.4 Ac = 456.5
fy
= 456.5 mm2
COMB130
Vu = (1.0Pd + 1.0Pl) = 180 kN Loads were Ultimate
Vu L
Mu = = 360 kN-m
3
2 Mu
a =
d d2 = 26.81 mm ; a < amax
0.85 f ck bb
Shear Design
The following quantities are computed for all of the load combinations:
= 0.75
Av b bw
= max 3.5 , 0.2 f ck
w
s min f y fy
Combo1
Vu = 180 kN
(Vc /=
2 ) 51.35 kN =
Vu 180 kN Vmax
= 256.75 kN
Av 300 0.2 30
= max 3.5
,
300
s min 420 420
Av mm 2
=
=
max { 2.5, 0.78} 0.0083
s min mm
Av (Vu Vc ) mm 2 mm 2
= = 0.5154 = 515.4
s f yd mm m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
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:
0.003 0.003
cmax = d= ( 490 ) = 183.75 mm
0.003 + 0.005 0.003 + 0.005
Pu = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc = 0.85 f ck ab = 0.85 30 350a = 8925a
( )
Cs = As' f y - 0.85 f ck = 2500 ( 460 - 0.85 30 ) = 1, 086, 250 N
Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).
T = As f s = 2500 f s ( f s < f y )
Pu = 8,925a +1, 086, 250 - 2500 f s (Eqn. 1)
1 a
Pu = ' c
e 2
(
C d - + Cs d - d ' )
The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 215 mm
e' = e + d " = 250 + 215 = 465 mm
1 a
Pu = 8,925a 490 - + 1, 086, 250 ( 490 - 60 )
465 2
2
Pu = 9, 404.8a - 9.6a +1, 004, 489.2 (Eqn. 2)
=
1 0.85 .007(30 28)
= 0.836 for =
f ck 30MPa,
a = 0.836 335 = 280 mm
Substitute in Eqn. 2:
Pu = 9, 404.8 280 - 9.6 ( 280 ) +1, 004, 489.2 = 2,885,193.2 N
2
490 - 335
fs = 600 = 277.8 MPa
335
s = t = f s Es = 0.00138
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
E= 1979899 kg/cm2 fc = 200 kg/cm2 (19.6133 MPa)
r = 0.05 m
= 0.2 b = 0.30 m fy = 4200 kg/cm2 (411.88 MPa)
G= 824958 kg/cm2 W = 6.58 Ton/m
(64.528 kN/m)
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.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
f 'c 19.61
=
f c* = = 15.69 MPa
1.25 1.25
c Es
cb = d = 355.8 mm
c Es + f yd
amax = 1cb = 302.4 mm
f c*
where, 1 1.05
= , 0.65 1 0.85
140
0.22 f 'c
=As ,min = bd 425.8 mm 2
fy
COMB1
u = 6.58 ton/cm (64.528kN/m)
Mu =
u l 2
8
= 64.528 6.02/8 = 290.376 kN-m
The depth of the compression block is given by: (RCDF-NTC 2.1, 1.5.1.2)
2 Mu
a =
d d2 = 154.2 mm
0.85 f c* FR b
where FR = 0.9
Compression steel not required since a < amax.
Mu 290376000
As = = = 1498 mm 2
a
FR f y d
0.9(411.88) ( 600 154.2 / 2 )
2
Shear Design
The shear demand is computed as:
= Vu ( L / 2 d ) =15.79 ton (154.9 kN) at distance, d, from support for
this example
The shear force is limited to a maximum of,
(
= VcR + 0.8 f c* Acv
Vmax )
The nominal shear strength provided by concrete is computed as:
=VcR 0.3FRv ( 0.2 + 20 ) f c* Acv = 0.3 0.8 ( 0.3665 ) 15.69 300 600
Av 0.1 f c ' mm 2
=
= b 289 (RCDF-NTC 2.5.2.3, Eqn 2.22)
s min fy m
=
Av (=
Vu FRvVcR ) 154.9 0.8 43.553
= 563
mm 2
s FRv f ys d 0.8 411.88 600 m
(RCDF-NTC 2.5.2.3, Eqn 2.23)
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
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 = FR ( 2551) = 1794 kN
M = FR ( 638 ) = 448 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the flexural and shear design. The load
level is adjusted for the case corresponding to the following conditions:
The average shear stress in the beam is below the maximum shear stress
allowed by NZS 3101-06, requiring design shear reinforcement.
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.
Dead load, Pd = 50 kN
Live load, Pl = 130 kN
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.
Av
Reinforcement Area,
s
(sq-mm/m)
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
b = 0.85
=1 0.85 for f c 55MPa
=1 0.85 for f c 30,
c
cb = d = 283.02 mm
c + f y Es
amax = 0.751cb= 180.42 mm
=
Ac b=
d 150, 000 mm 2
f c
Ac = 446.5
4 fy
As ,min = max mm2
1.4 Ac = 456.5
fy
= 456.5 mm2
COMB130
V* = (1.2Pd + 1.5Pl) = 255 kN
V *L
M* = = 510 kN-m
3
2 M*
a =
d d 2
= 194.82 mm ; a > amax
1 fc'b b f
amax
cb= = 0.75= = 212.26 mm
cb 0.75283.02
,max
1
c d '
=f s c ,max Es b ,max fy ;
cb ,max
212.26 60
f s 0.003200, 000
= = 430 MPa =
f y 460 MPa
212.26
f s = 430 MPa
The required tension reinforcing for balancing the compression in the concrete is:
M c*
=As1 = 3, 001 mm 2
a
f y d max b
2
And the tension required for balancing the compression reinforcement is given
by:
M s*
=As 2 = 169.9 mm 2
f y ( d d ') b
=
Therefore, the total tension reinforcement, As As1 + As 2 is given by:
Shear Design
The nominal shear strength provided by concrete is computed as:
VC = vC ACV , where
vC = kd ka vb , and
kd = 1.0 since shear reinforcement provided will be equal
to or greater than the nominal amount required.
ka = 1.0 (Program default)
A
=
vb 0.07 + 10 s f 'C , except vb is neither less than
bd
0.08 f 'C nor greater than 0.2 f 'C and f 'C 50 MPa
vC = 0.4382
The average shear stress is limited to a maximum limit of,
vmax = min {0.2 f c , 8 MPa} = min{6, 8} = 6 MPa
For this example, the nominal shear strength provided by concrete is:
VC= vC ACV= 0.4382 300 500= 65.727 kN
*
V
=
v *
= 1.7 MPa < vmax , so there is no concrete crushing.
bw d
sc = 0.328 MPa
Av VS 274.27 1E6
= = = 1192.5 mm 2
s f yt d 460 500
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
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
N * = Cc + C s T
where
Cc = 0.85 f c'ab = 0.85 30 350a = 8925a
( )
Cs = As' f y - 0.85 f c' = 2500 ( 460 - 0.85 30 ) = 1,086, 250 N
Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).
T = As f s = 2500 f s ( f s < f y )
N * = 8,925a + 1,086, 250 - 2500 f s (Eqn. 1)
a '
N* =
1
( )
Cc d - 2 + C s d - d
e'
The plastic centroid is at the center of the section and d " = 215 mm
e' = e + d " = 250 + 215 = 465 mm
1 a
N* = 8,925a 490 - + 1,086, 250 ( 490 - 60 )
465 2
* 2
N = 9, 404.8a - 9.6a + 1,004, 489.2 (Eqn. 2)
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 = 600 = 290.9 MPa
330
s = t = f s Es = 0.00145
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this
example.
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
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
Design Moment, Mu (kN-m) 294.30 294.30 0.00%
CONCLUSION
The computed flexural results show an exact match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
m, steel = 1.15
As ,min = 0.0013bh , where b=300mm, h=600mm
= 234.00 sq-mm
Shear Design
Vu = =160.23 kN at distance, d, from support
V
v= = 0.9711 MPa
bw d
=
0.95 1, so is taken as 1.
d d
fcu 40 MPa (for calculation purposes only) and As is the area of tension
reinforcement.
If (vc + 0.4) < v vmax
=
Asv (=
v vc ) bw ( 0.9711 0.4418 )
= 0.730 sq-mm/mm
sv 0.87 f yv 0.87250
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
My = 493 kN-m
550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
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
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The flexural and shear strength of a rectangular concrete beam is tested in this
example.
60 mm 550 mm
A
Section A-A
6m
-1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The computed results show an exact match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Flexural Design
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
f ck 30
f= = = 20
mc 1.5
cd
f yk 420
=
f yd = = 365
ms 1.15
cu Es
cb = d = 304.6 mm
cu Es + f yd
amax = 0.85k1cb = 212.3 mm
where, k1 = 0.85 0.006 ( f ck 25 ) = 0.82 , 0.70 k1 0.85
0.8 f ctd
=
As ,min = bd 315.5 mm 2
f yd
0.35 f cu 0.35 30
=
Where f ctd = = 1.278
mc 1.5
COMB1
d = 36.67 kN/m
Md =
d L2
8
= 36.67 62/8 = 165.02 kN-m
2 Md
a =
d d2 = 95.42 mm
0.85 fcd b
Compression steel not required since a < amax.
Md 165E6
As = =
a 365 ( 490 95.41/ 2 )
f yd d
2
As = 1022 mm2
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,
= =
Vmax 0.22 fcd Aw 496 kN
The nominal shear strength provided by concrete is computed as:
N
=Vcr 0.65 fctd bd 1 + d
=93.6 kN, where N d = 0
Ag
= =
Vc 0.8Vcr 74.9 kN
The shear reinforcement is computed as follows:
If Vd Vcr
Asw f ctd mm 2
=
=
0.3 b 0.2415 (min. controls) (TS 8.1.5, Eqn 8.6)
s min f ywd mm
If Vcr Vd Vmax
=
Asw (=
Vd Vc )
0.1962
mm 2
(TS 8.1.4, Eqn 8.5)
s f ywd d mm
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
My = 477 kN-m
550mm
A A 60 mm 350mm
3m
Section A-A
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.
HAND CALCULATION
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 2x105 600
cb = dt = ( 490 ) = 305 mm
0.003 2x10 + f yk
5
600 + 420 / 1.15
N = Cc + C s T
where
Cc = 0.85f ck ab = 0.85 25 / 1.5 350a = 4,958a
A f 2500
Cs = s f yk 0.85 ck = ( 420 0.85 25 /1.5) =882, 246 N
s c 1.15
Assume compression steels yields, (this assumption will be checked later).
A f
T= s s=
s
2500 f s
1.15
( )
= 2174f s f s < f y
Substitute in Eqn. 2:
5525 304.6 5.3312 ( 304.6 ) + 815,840
2
N=
2 = 1,907, 643 N
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Wall Demand/Capacity Ratio 1.007 1.00 0.70%
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
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
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
M=
n P=
ne 1035(24.54) /12 = 2116 k-ft
t = 0.00244 , y = 0.0021
0.005 t
for y < t < 0.005 ; = ( t c ) = 0.712
0.005 y
7) Calculate ,
Pn = 0.711(1035 ) =
735 kips
M n = 0.711( 2115 ) =
1504 k-ft.
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is
loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 2384 k and moments Mu3 = 9293k-ft. The
design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are compared
with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn1 = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
= Ccw 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 )
=Ccf 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) )
Cs =A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc)
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5 + As6 f s6
=Pn1 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 ) + 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) ) + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) +
A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc) + As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5 + As 6 fs 6
(Eqn. 1)
3) Taking moments about As6:
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 )
= =
a 0.85 c 0.85 =
44.58 37.89 inches
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 44.58 inches, the steel
stresses and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain,
then f s = f y :
cd '
s1 = 0.003 f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.00273;=
c
csd '
s 2 = 0.003 = 0.00152 f s 2 = 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 f s 4 = 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
M=
n P=
ne 3148(46.78) /12 = 12,273 k-ft
t = 0.00332 , y = 0.0021
0.005 t
for y < t < 0.005 ; = ( t c ) = 0.757
0.005 y
Pn = 0.757 ( 3148 ) =
2384 kips
M n = 0.757 (12, 273) =
9293 k-ft.
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
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
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 :
cd '
s1 = 0.003 s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.0028; f s =
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
M=
n P=
ne 1035(24.54) /12 = 2116 k-ft
t = 0.00244 , y = 0.0021
0.005 t
for y < t < 0.005 ; = ( t c ) = 0.712
0.005 y
7) Calculate ,
Pn = 0.711(1035 ) =
735 kips
M n = 0.711( 2115 ) =
1504 k-ft.
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is
loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 2384 k and moments Mu3 = 9293k-ft. The
design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are compared
with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn1 = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
= Ccw 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 )
=Ccf 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) )
Cs =A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc)
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5 + As6 f s6
=Pn1 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 ) + 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) ) + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) +
(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
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 f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.00273;=
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
M=
n P=
ne 3148(46.78) /12 = 12,273 k-ft
Pn = 0.757 ( 3148 ) =
2384 kips
M n = 0.757 (12, 273) =
9, 293 k-ft.
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
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
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 :
cd '
s1 = 0.003 s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.0028; f s =
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
M=
n P=
ne 1035(24.54) /12 = 2116 k-ft
t = 0.00244 , y = 0.0021
0.005 t
for y < t < 0.005 ; = ( t c ) = 0.712
0.005 y
7) Calculate ,
Pn = 0.711(1035 ) =
735 kips
M n = 0.711( 2115 ) =
1504 k-ft.
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is
loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 2384 k and moments Mu3 = 9293k-ft. The
design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are compared
with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn1 = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
= Ccw 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 )
=Ccf 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) )
Cs =A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc)
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5 + As6 f s6
=Pn1 0.85 fc 8 ( a 8 ) + 0.85 fc ( 8 ( 98 40 ) ) + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) +
(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
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 f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.00273;=
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
M=
n P=
ne 3148(46.78) /12 = 12,273 k-ft
Pn = 0.757 ( 3148 ) =
2384 kips
M n = 0.757 (12, 273) =
9, 293 k-ft.
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example. A reinforced masonry wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 556
k and moments Muy = 1331 k-ft. This wall is reinforced with two #9 bars at each
end and #4 bars at 14.00 inches on center each of face module (The reinforcing is
not aligned with the conventional masonry block spacing for calculation
convenience. The same excel spreadsheet used in other concrete examples was
used here). The total area of reinforcement is 5.20 in2. The design capacity ratio
is checked by hand calculations and the results are compared with ETABS
program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
1 fm ab =
Cc = 0.8 2.5 12a =
24.0a
Cs = A1 ( fs1 0.8 fm ) + A2 ( fs 2 0.8 fm ) + A3 ( fs 3 0.8 fm )
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5
Pn1 =24a + A1 ( fs1 0.8 fm ) + A2 ( fs 2 0.8 fm ) + A3 ( fs 3 0.8 fm ) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5
(Eqn. 1)
1 a
=
Pn 2 Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) Ts 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )
e 2
(Eqn. 2)
where= Cs1 A1 ( f s1 0.8 f m )=
; Csn An ( f sn 0.8 f m ) ; Tsn = f sn Asn ; and the bar strains
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.
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
M=
n P=
ne 618(28.72) /12 = 1479 k-ft
6) Calculate ,
Pn = 0.9 ( 618 ) =
556 kips
M n = 0.9 (1479 ) =
1331 k-ft.
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial loading and moment is tested in this
example. The wall is reinforced as shown below. The concrete core wall is
loaded with a factored axial load Pu = 1496 k and moments Mu3 = 7387 k-ft. The
design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results are
compared with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn1 = Cc + Cs T
where
1 fm ab =
Cc = 0.8 2.5 12a =
24.0a
Cs = A1 ( fs1 0.8 fm ) + A2 ( fs 2 0.8 fm ) + A3 ( fs 3 0.8 fm )
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5 + As6 f s6
Pn1 =24a + A1 ( fs1 0.8 fm ) + A2 ( fs 2 0.8 fm ) +
(Eqn. 1)
A3 ( fs 3 0.8 fm ) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6
a tf
1 Ccf ( d d ') + Ccw d + Cs1 ( d d ') + Cs 2 ( 4s ) +
Pn 2 = 2 (Eqn. 2)
e
Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2s ) Ts 5 ( s )
= =
a 0.8 = 32.92 inches
c 0.8 41.15
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 f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 60.00 ksi
= 0.00226;=
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 P=
ne 1662(41.15) /12 = 8208 k-ft
Pn = 0.9 (1622 ) =
1496 kips
M n = 0.9 ( 8208 ) =
7387 k-ft.
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 fcab 0.85 30
= 300a 7650a
Cs =A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc)
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5
Pn1 =7650a + A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) +
(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
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
M=
n P=
ne 5289(582.6) /1000000 = 3081 k-ft
6) Calculate ,
Pn = 0.65 ( 5289 ) =
3438 kN
M n = 0.65 ( 3081) =
2003 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =
11175 kN and moments Muy = 12564 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted
below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results
are compared with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS result shows an acceptable comparison with the independent result.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
= Ccw 0.85 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
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
M=
n P=
ne 17192(1124.3) /1000000 = 19329 kN-m
6) Calculate ,
= Pn 0.65= (17192 ) 11175 kN
= (19329 ) 12564 kN-m
M n 0.65 =
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
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 = fs1 fc + fs 2 fc + fs 3 fc
s m s m s m
As 4 A
=T fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
s s
As1 0.67 As2 0.67
Pn1 =4709a + fs1 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
1 a
=
Pn 2 Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( d d s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s ) (Eqn. 2)
e 2
As1 0.67 As 2 0.67 As 3 0.67
=
where Cs1 f s1 ; Cs 2
f c= fs2 f c=
; Cs 3 fs3 f c ;
s m s m s m
As 4 0.67
=Ts 4 fs4 f c and the bar strains and stresses are determined below.
s m
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 3246 kN
Pn2 = 3246 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3246(606.5) /1000 = 1969 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =
8368 kN and moments Muy = 11967 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted
below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results
are compared with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
0.67
= Ccw fcu 200 ( a 200 )
m
0.67
Ccf = fcu ( 200 2500 )
m
As1 0.67 As2 0.67 As3 0.67
Cs = fs1 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
a tf
1 Ccf ( d d ) + Ccw d tf + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 4 s )
Pn 2 = 2 (Eqn. 2)
e
+Cs 3 ( 3s ) Ts 4 ( 2 s ) Ts 5 ( s )
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 8368 kN
Pn2 = 8368 kN
M=
n P=
ne 8368(1430) /1000 = 11,967 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
700 700
=cb = dt = (1450 ) 875 mm
700 + f y 700 + 460
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
1 a
=
Pn 2 Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( d d s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s ) (Eqn. 2)
e 2
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 3870 kN
Pn2 = 3870 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3870(545) / 1000 = 2109 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =
10687 kN and moments Muy = 13159 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted
below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results
are compared with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
Ccw = c 1 f c200 ( a - 200 )
Ccf = c 1 f c ( 2002500 )
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
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 10687 kN
Pn2 = 10687 kN
M= n P=
ne 10687(1231.3) /1000000 = 13159 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
700 700
=cb = dt = (1450 ) 875 mm
700 + f y 700 + 460
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
1 a
=
Pn 2 Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( d d s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s ) (Eqn. 2)
e 2
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 3870 kN
Pn2 = 3870 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3870(545) / 1000 = 2109 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =
10687 kN and moments Muy = 13159 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted
below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results
are compared with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
Ccw = c 1 f c200 ( a - 200 )
Ccf = c 1 f c ( 2002500 )
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
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 10687 kN
Pn2 = 10687 kN
M= n P=
ne 10687(1231.3) /1000000 = 13159 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
700 700
=cb = dt = (1450 ) 922.7 mm
700 + f y / s 700 + 460 /1.15
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
cc fck 1.0 30
= Cc = ab = 300a 6000a
m 1.5
As1 cc fck As 2 cc fck As 3 cc fck
Cs = fs1 + fs 2 + fs 3
s m s m s m
As 4 A
=T fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
s s
As1 cc fck As 2 cc fck
Pn1 =6000a + fs1 + fs 2 +
s m s m
(Eqn. 1)
As 3 cc fck As 4 A
fs 3 fs 4 s 5 fs 5
s m s s
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 fs1 = ; 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
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 4340 kN
Pn2 = 4340 kN
M=
n P=
ne 4340(708.3) /1000 = 2503 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu =
11605 kN and moments Muy = 15342 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted
below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results
are compared with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
Where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
cc fck 0.85 30
Ccw= 200 ( a 200 )= 200 ( a 200 )= 3400(a 200)
m 1.5
cc fck
= Ccf
m
( 200 ( 2500
= 1000 ) )
0.85(30)
1.5
( 200 ( 2500= 1000 ) ) 5,100, 000
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 + fs1 + 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)
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
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 11605 kN
Pn2 = 11605 kN
M=
n P=
ne 11605(1322) /1000 = 15342 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
0.36
Cc = f ck ab = 0.4286 30 300a = 3857 a , where a = 0.84 xu
0.84
A A A
Cs =s1 ( fs1 0.4286 fc) + s 2 ( fs 2 0.4286 fc) + s 3 ( fs 3 0.4286 fc)
s s s
A A
T = s4 f s4 + s5 f s5
s s
As1 A
Pn1 =
3857 a + ( fs1 0.4286 fc) + s 2 ( fs 2 0.4286 fc) +
s s
(Eqn. 1)
As3
s
( fs 3 0.4286 fc' ) s 4 fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
A
s
A
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
As1 As 2
=
where Cs1 ( f s1 0.4286 f c=
) ; C s 2 ( f s 2 0.4286 f c) ;
s s
As 3 A
=
Cs 3 ( f s 3 0.4286 f c) ; Ts 4 = s 4 ( f s 4 ) and the bar strains and stresses are
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 f s s E Fy ;
= 0.00331;= 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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 3146 kN
Pn2 = 3146 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3146(596) /1000 = 1875 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu= 8426
kN and moments Muy= 11670 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted below.
The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and results are
compared with ETABS program.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Wall Demand/Capacity Ratio 1.003 1.00 0.30%
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show a very close match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
0.36
Ccw = f ck 200 ( a - 200 ) , where a = 0.84x u
0.84
0.36
Ccf = f ck 200 ( 2500-1000 )
0.84
A' 0.36 As2' 0.36 As3' 0.36
Cs = s1 f s1 - f ck + f ck + 0.84
f - f s3 - f ck
s 0.84 s
s2
0.84 s
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
f ck 200 ( a - 200 ) + f ck 200 ( 2500-1000 ) + f ck + 0.84
Pn1 = f s1 - f s2 - f ck
0.84 0.84 s 0.84 s
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)
1 a tf
Pn2 = Ccf ( d - d' ) + Ccw d - 2 tf + Cs1 ( d - d' ) + Cs2 ( 4s ) + Cs3 ( 3s ) Ts4 ( 2s ) Ts5 ( s )
e'
(Eqn. 2)
A' 0.36 A' 0.36 A
Where Cs1 = s1 f s1 - f ck ; Cs 2 = sn f sn - f ck ; Ts 4 = sn ( f sn ) and the bar
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 f s s E Fy ;
=0.00323;= 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
Substitute in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the two equations
are equal gives,
Pn1 = 8426 kN
Pn2 = 8426 kN
M=
n P=
ne 8426(1385) /1000 = 11670 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 =
f ck ab 0.85 30 300a 7650a
Cs =A1 ( f s1 0.85 f ck ) + A2 ( f s 2 0.85 f ck ) + A3 ( f s 3 0.85 f ck )
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5
1 a
=
Pn 2 Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s ) (Eqn. 2)
e 2
Cs1 A1 ( f s1 0.85 f ck )=
where= ; Cs 2 A2 ( f s 2 0.85 f ck ) ; Cs 3 ( f s 3 0.85 f ck ) ;
Ts 4 = f s 4 As 4 and the bar strains are determined below. The plastic centroid is at the
center of the section and d = 700mm
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c= 833.27 mm, the steel stresses
and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,
fs = f y :
c d
s1 = 0.003 = 0.0028; f s =
s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.00 MPa
c
c s d
s 2 = 0.003 = 0.0016 f s 2 = 312.0 MPa
c
c 2s d '
s3 = 0.003 = 0.0003 f s 3 = 60.0 MPa
c
d cs
s 4 = 0.003 = 0.00103 f s 4 = 259.5 MPa
d c
d c
s5 = 0.003 = 0.0022 f s 5 = 444.1 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 = 5340 kN
Pn2 = 5340 kN
M=
n P=
ne 5340(576.4) /1000 = 3078 kN-m
6) Calculate ,
Pn = 0.65 ( 5340 ) =
3471 kN
M n = 0.65 ( 3078 ) =
2000.7 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =
11256 kN and moments Muy = 1498 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted
below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results
are compared with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS result shows a very close match with the independent result.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
= Ccw 0.85 f ck 200 ( a 200 )
Ccf = 0.85 f ck ( 200 1500 )
Cs =A1 ( f s1 0.85 f ck ) + A2 ( f s 2 0.85 f ck ) + A3 ( f s 3 0.85 f ck )
T = As 4 fs 4 + As 5 fs 5 + As 6 fs 6
=Pn1 0.85 f ck 200 ( a 200 ) + 0.85 f ck ( 200 1500 ) + A1 ( f s1 0.85 f ck ) +
A2 ( f s 2 0.85 f ck ) + A3 ( f s 3 0.85 f ck ) + As 4 f s 4 + As 5 f s 5 + As 6 f s 6
(Eqn. 1)
Cs1 A1 ( f s1 0.85 f ck )=
where= , Csn An ( f sn 0.85 f ck ) , 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
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 1480 mm, the steel stresses
and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,
fs = f y :
c d
s1 = 0.003 = 0.0028; fs =
s E Fy ; f s1 = 420.0 MPa
c
c s d
s 2 = 0.003 = 0.00186 f s 2 = 373.0 MPa
c
c 2s d
s3 = 0.003 = 0.00093 f s 3 = 186.5 MPa
c
d c 2s
=s 4 s 6 = 0.0000 f s 4 = 0.0 MPa
d c
d cs
=s5 s 6 = 0.00093 f s 5 = 186.5 MPa
d c
d c
s 6 = 0.003 = 0.00272 f s 6 = 373.0 MPa
c
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
axial force from two equations are less than 1%
Pn1 = 13232 kN
Pn2 = 13250 kN , use average Pn = 13242 kN
M= n P=
ne 13242(1199.2) /1000 = 15879.8 kN-m
6) Calculate ,
= Pn 0.85= (13242 ) 11256 kN
M n 0.85 (=
= 15879.8 ) 13498 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Wall Demand/Capacity Ratio 1.016 1.00 1.60%
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 =
fc*ab 0.85 0.8 30 300a 6120a
A1 ( fs1 0.85 0.8 fc* ) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 0.8 fc* ) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 0.8 fc* )
Cs =
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5
1 a
=
Pn 2 Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s ) (Eqn. 2)
e 2
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 5064 kN
Pn2 = 5064 kN
M=
n P=
ne 5064(512.5) /1000000 = 2595 kN-m
7) Calculate Pn and, M n ,
Pn = 0.70 ( 5064 ) =
3545 kips
M n = 0.70 ( 2595 ) =
1817 k-ft.
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 program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
= Ccw 0.85 0.8 fc 200 ( a 200 )
Ccf = 0.85 0.8 fc ( 200 1500 )
A1 ( fs1 0.85 0.8 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 0.8 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 0.8 fc)
Cs =
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5 + As6 f s6
=Pn1 0.85 0.8 fc 200 ( a 200 ) + 0.85 0.8 fc ( 200 1500 ) + A1 ( fs1 0.85 0.8 fc)
+ A2 ( fs 2 0.85 0.8 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 0.8 fc) As 4 fs 4 As 5 fs 5 As 6 fs 6
(Eqn. 1)
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 f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 460.0 MPa
= 0.00279;=
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 P=
ne 14522(1124.4) /1000000 = 16328 kN-m
6) Calculate Pn and M n ,
= (14522 ) 10165 kN
Pn 0.70=
M n 0.70 (=
= 16382 ) 11430 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 fcab 0.85 30
= 300a 7650a
Cs =A1 ( fs1 0.85 fc) + A2 ( fs 2 0.85 fc) + A3 ( fs 3 0.85 fc)
T = As4 f s4 + As5 f s5
1 a
=
Pn 2 Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( 3s ) + Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s ) (Eqn. 2)
e 2
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 5352 kN
Pn2 = 5352 kN
M=
n P=
ne 5352(576.4) /1000000 = 3085 kN-m
6) Calculate ,
Pn = 0.85 ( 5352 ) =
4549 kN
M n = 0.85 ( 3085 ) =
2622 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =
13625 kN and moments Muy = 16339 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted
below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results
are compared with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS result shows a very close match with the independent result.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
= =
Cc 0.85 fcab 0.85 30
= 300a 7650a
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
= Ccw 0.85 fc 200 ( a 200 )
Ccf = 0.85 fc ( 200 2500 )
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
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 16029 kN
Pn2 = 16029 kN
M=
n P=
ne 16029(1199.2) /1000000 = 19222 kN-m
6) Calculate ,
= Pn 0.85= (16029 ) 13625 kN
M n 0.85 (=
= 19222 ) 16339 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 3246 kN
Pn2 = 3246 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3246(606.5) /1000 = 1969 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to a factored axial load Pu =
8368 kN and moments Muy = 11967 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted
below. The design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results
are compared with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
0.67
= Ccw fcu 200 ( a 200 )
m
0.67
Ccf = f cu ( 2002500 )
m
As1 0.67 As2 0.67 As3 0.67
Cs = fs1 fc + fs 2 fc + fs 3 fc
s m s m s m
A A A
T = s 4 fs 4 + s 5 fs 5 + s 6 fs 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
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 )
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
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
Substituting in Eqn. 1 and 2 and iterating the value of the neutral axis depth until the
two equations are equal give
Pn1 = 8368 kN
Pn2 = 8368 kN
M=
n P=
ne 8368(1430) /1000 = 11,967 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
fck 0.67
= =
Cc 0.85 ab =
25 300a 3350a
c 1.5
A 0.85 As2 0.85 As3 0.85
Cs = s1 fs1 fck + fs 2 fck + fs 3 fck
s c s c s c
As 4 A
=T fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
s s
As1 0.85 As2 0.85
Pn1 =
3350a + fs1 fck + fs 2 fck +
s c s c
(Eqn. 1)
As3 0.85 As 4 A
fs 3 fck fs 4 + s 5 fs 5
s c s s
a
1 Cc d + Cs1 ( d d ) + Cs 2 ( d d s ) +
Pn 2 = 2 (Eqn. 2)
e
Cs 3 ( 2s ) Ts 4 ( s )
=
a k=
1c = 725.4 mm
0.85 853.4
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.0030 and c = 853.4 mm, the steel stresses
and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain then,
fs = f y :
c d
s1 = 0.003 = 0.00282; f s =
s E Fy ; f s1 = 420.0 MPa
c
c s d
s 2 = 0.003 = 0.00159 f s 2 = 318.8 MPa
c
d c 2s
=s3 s5 = 0.00036 f s 3 = 72.7 MPa
d c
d cs
=s 4 s5 = 0.00087 f s 4 = 173.4 MPa
d c
d c
s5 = 0.003 = 0.00210 f s 5 = 419.5 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 = 3132 kN
Pn2 = 3132 kN
M=
n P=
ne 3132(624.4) /1000 = 1956 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The Demand/Capacity ratio for a given axial load and moment are tested in this
example. A reinforced concrete wall is subjected to factored axial load Pu = 9134
kN and moments Muy = 11952 kN-m. This wall is reinforced as noted below. The
design capacity ratio is checked by hand calculations and the results are
compared with ETABS program results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with ETABS design
check.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Wall Demand/Capacity Ratio 0.996 1.00 0.40%
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable match with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Pn = Cc + Cs T
where
Cc =Ccw +Ccf , where Ccw and Ccf are the area of the concrete web and flange in
compression
f 0.85 30
Ccw= ck 200 ( a 200 )= 200 ( a 200 )= 3400(a 200)
c 1.5
Ccf 0.85 ck ( 200 ( 2500 1000 ) ) ( 200 ( 2500 1000 ) ) 5,100, 000
f 0.85(30)
= = =
c 1.5
f f f
Cs = A1 fs1 0.85 ck + A2 fs 2 0.85 ck + A3 fs 3 0.85 ck
c c c
f f f
T = As 4 s 4 + As 5 s 4 + As 6 s 4
s s s
As1 fck As 2 fck
Pn1= 3400(a 200) + 5,100, 000 + fs1 0.85 + fs 2 0.85
s c s c
As 3 fck As 4 A A
+ fs 3 0.85 fs 4 s 5 fs 5 s 6 fs 6
s c s s s
(Eqn. 1)
=
a k=
1c = 1061.1 mm
0.85 1327
5) Assuming the extreme fiber strain equals 0.003 and c = 1327 mm, the steel stresses
and strains can be calculated. When the bar strain exceeds the yield strain, then
fs = f y :
c d
s1 = 0.003 f s s E Fy ; f s1 = 420.0 MPa
= 0.00277;=
c
csd '
s2 = 0.003 = 0.00173 f s 2 = 346.8 MPa
c
c 2s d '
s3 = 0.003 = 0.00069 f s 3 = 138.8 MPa
c
d c 2s
s4 = s6 = 0.00035 f s 4 = 69.2 MPa
d c
d cs
s5 = s6 = 0.00139 f s 5 = 277.2 MPa
d c
d c
s6 = 0.003 = 0.00243 f s 6 = 420.0 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 = 9134 kN
Pn2 = 9134 kN
M=
n P=
ne 9134(1308.6) /1000 = 11952 kN-m
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A series of 45-ft. span composite beams at 10 ft. o/c carry the loads shown
below. The beams are ASTM A992 and are unshored during construction. The
concrete has a specified compressive strength, fc = 4 ksi. Design a typical floor
beam with 3-in., 18-gage composite deck and 4 in. normal weight concrete
above the deck, for fire protection and mass. Select an appropriate beam and
determine the required number of in.-diameter shear studs.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are referenced from Example I.1 from the AISC Design
Examples, Version 13.0.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent
Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
The live load deflection differs due to a difference in methodology. In the AISC
example, the live load deflection is computed based on a lower bound value of
the beam moment of inertia, whereas in ETABS, it is computed based on the
approximate value of the beam moment of inertia derived from Equation (C-I3-6)
from the Commentary on the AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design
Specification Second Edition.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi, wsteel = 490 pcf
4000 psi normal weight concrete
Ec = 3,644 ksi, fc = 4 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf
Section:
W21x55
d = 20.8 in, bf = 8.22 in, tf = 0.522 in, tw = 0.38 in, h = 18.75 in., rfillet = 0.5 in.
Asteel = 16.2 in2, Ssteel = 109.6 in3, Zsteel = 126 in3, Isteel = 1140 in4
Deck:
tc =4 in., hr = 3 in., sr =12 in., wr = 6 in.
Shear Connectors:
d = in, h =4 in, Fu = 65 ksi
wu L2 1.31615 452
=
Mu = = 333.15 kip-ft
8 8
Moment Capacity:
b M n = b Z s Fy =( 0.9 126 50 ) 12 =472.5 kip-ft
Pre-Composite Deflection:
0.830
5 ( 45 12 )
4
4
5wD L 12
=
nc = = 2.31 in.
384 EI 384 29, 000 1,140
wu L2 2.68 452
=
Mu = = 687.5 kip-ft
8 8
Full Composite Action Available Flexural Strength:
Effective width of slab:
10.0 45.0 ft
beff = 2 sides =10.0 ft =11.25 ft
2 8
Resistance of steel in tension:
C = Py = As Fy = 16.2 50 = 810 kips controls
Resistance of slab in compression:
Ac = beff tc = (10 12 ) 4.5 =
2
540 in
C= 0.85 f 'c A=
c 0.85 4 540
= 1836 kips
Depth of compression block within slab:
C 810
=a = = 1.99 in.
0.85 beff f 'c 0.85 (10 12 ) 4
Moment resistance of composite beam for full composite action:
a 2.00
d1 = (tc + hr ) = (4.5 + 3) = 6.51 in.
2 2
d 20.8 / 12
M n =
Py d1 + Py =
0.9 810 6.51 / 12 + 810 =1027.1 kip-ft
2 2
Moment Arm
Transformed from
Area Centroid Ay Ay2 I0
Element A (in2) y (in.) (in.3) (in,4) (in.4)
Slab 67.9 15.65 1,062 16,620 115
W21x50 16.2 0 0 0 1,140
84.1 1,062 16,620 1,255
I x =I 0 + Ay 2 =
1, 255 + 16,620 =
17,874 in.4
1, 062
=y = 12.6 in.
84.1
2
I tr = I x A y = 17,874 82.6 12.62 = 4, 458 in 4
5 (1 12 ) ( 30 12 )
4
5wL L4
=
LL = = 1.35 in.
384 EI eff 384 29, 000 2,350
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A typical bay of a composite floor system is illustrated below. Select an
appropriate ASTM A992 W-shaped beam and determine the required number of
in.-diameter steel headed stud anchors. The beam will not be shored during
construction. To achieve a two-hour fire rating without the application of spray
applied fire protection material to the composite deck, 4 in. of normal weight
(145 lb/ft3) concrete will be placed above the top of the deck. The concrete has a
specified compressive strength, fc = 4 ksi.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are referenced from Example I.1 from the AISC Design
Examples, Version 14.0.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent
Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
The live load deflection differs due to a difference in methodology. In the AISC
example, the live load deflection is computed based on a lower bound value of
the beam moment of inertia, whereas in ETABS, it is computed based on the
approximate value of the beam moment of inertia derived from Equation (C-I3-6)
from the Commentary on the AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design
Specification Second Edition.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi, wsteel = 490 pcf
4000 psi normal weight concrete
Ec = 3,644 ksi, f c = 4 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf
Section:
W21x50
d = 20.8 in, bf = 6.53 in, tf = 0.535 in, tw = 0.38 in, k = 1.04 in
Asteel = 14.7 in2, Ssteel = 94.6 in3, Zsteel = 110 in3, Isteel = 984 in4
Deck:
tc =4 in., hr = 3 in., sr =12 in., wr = 6 in.
Shear Connectors:
d = in, h =4 in, Fu = 65 ksi
wu L2 1.36 452
=
Mu = = 344.25 kip-ft
8 8
Moment Capacity:
b M n = b Z s Fy =(0.9 110 50) 12 =412.5 kip-ft
Pre-Composite Deflection:
0.800
5 ( 45 12 )
4
5wD L4 12
=
nc = = 2.59 in.
384 EI 384 29, 000 984
= 0.8 nc
Camber = 0.8 2.59
= 2.07 in., which is rounded down to 2 in.
Design for Composite Flexural Strength:
Required Flexural Strength:
wu = 1.2 0.800 + 1.2 0.100 + 1.6 1 = 2.68 kip/ft
wu L2 2.68 452
=
Mu = = 678.38 kip-ft
8 8
Full Composite Action Available Flexural Strength:
Effective width of slab:
10.0 45.0 ft
beff = 2 sides =10.0 ft =11.25 ft
2 8
Resistance of steel in tension:
C = Py = As Fy = 14.7 50 = 735 kips controls
Resistance of slab in compression:
Ac = beff tc = (10 12 ) 4.5 =
2
540 in
C= 0.85 f 'c A=
c 0.85 4 540
= 1836 kips
Depth of compression block within slab:
C 735
=a = = 1.80 in.
0.85 beff f 'c 0.85 (10 12 ) 4
Moment resistance of composite beam for full composite action:
a 1.80
d1 = ( tc + hr ) = ( 4.5 + 3) = 6.60 in.
2 2
d 20.8 /12
M n = Py d1 + Py =0.9 735 6.60 /12 + 735 =937.1 kip-ft
2 2
d =
1 (tc + hr ) a2 = ( 4.5 + 3)
0.92
2
= 7.04 in.
Distance from the centroid of the compressive force in the steel section to the top of
the steel section:
C flange t f / 2 + ((Py C ) / 2 C flange ) (t f + x / 2)
d2 =
( Py C ) / 2
174.7 0.535 / 2 + (180.6 174.7) (0.535 + 0.2 / 2)
= 0.279 in.
180.6
Moment resistance of composite beam for partial composite action:
C ( d1 + d 2 ) + Py ( d 3 d 2 )
M n =
20.8
= 0.9 373.9 ( 7.04 + 0.279 ) + 735 0.279 =
12 763.2 kip-ft
2
Shear Stud Strength:
From AISC Manual Table 3.21, assuming the shear studs are placed in the weak
position, the strength of in.-diameter shear studs in normal weight concrete with
f c = 4 ksi and deck oriented perpendicular to the beam is:
Ix =I 0 + Ay 2 =
1, 099 + 16, 620 =
17, 719 in.4
1, 062
=y = 12.9 in.
82.6
2
I tr = I x A y = 17, 719 82.6 12.92 = 4, 058 in 4
Effective moment inertia assuming partial composite action:
I equiv = I s + Qn / Py ( I tr I s ) = 984 + 0.51(4,058 984) = 3,176 in 4
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The design is checked for the composite girder shown below. The deck is 3 in.
deep with 4 normal weight (145 pcf) concrete cover with a compressive
strength of 4 ksi. The girder will not be shored during construction. The applied
loads are the weight of the structure, a 25 psf construction live load, a 10 psf
superimposed dead load and a 100 psf non-reducible service line load.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are referenced from Example I.2 from the AISC Design
Examples, Version 14.0.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent
Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
The live load deflection differs more markedly because of a difference in
methodology. In the AISC example, the live load deflection is computed based
on a lower bound value of the beam moment of inertia, whereas in ETABS, it is
computed based on the approximate value of the beam moment of inertia derived
from Equation (C-I3-6) from the Commentary on the AISC Load and Resistance
Factor Design Specification Second Edition.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi, wsteel = 490 pcf
4000 psi normal weight concrete
Ec = 3,644 ksi, f c = 4 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf
Section:
W24x76
d = 23.9 in, bf = 8.99 in, tf = 0.68 in, tw = 0.44 in
Asteel = 22.4 in2, Isteel = 2100 in4
Deck:
tc =4 in., hr = 3 in., sr =12 in., wr = 6 in.
Shear Connectors:
d = in, h =4 in, Fu = 65 ksi
[(45 ft)(10 ft)(75 psf ) + (50 plf )(45 ft)] (0.001 kip / lb) =
PD = 36 kips
PL [(45
= ft)(10 ft)(25 psf )] (0.001 kip/lb) 11.25 kips
1.2 wL2 L
Mu =+ (1.2 PD + 1.6 PL )
8 3
76.2 30 2
30
= 1.2 + (1.2 36 +1.6 11.25
= ) 622.3 kip-ft
8 3
Moment Capacity:
Lb = 10 ft
Lp = 6.78 ft
Lr = 19.5 ft
bBF = 22.6 kips
bMpx = 750 kip-ft
Cb = 1.0
b M=
n Cb b M px b BF ( Lb L p )
=1.0 750 22.6 (10 6.78 ) =677.2 kip-ft
Pre-Composite Deflection:
0.0762
5
3604
PD L 3
5wD L 36.0 360
4 3
12
= + = + = 1.0
384 EI 28 29, 000 2,100 384 29, 000 2,100
nc
28 EI
= 0.8 nc
Camber = 0.8 in. which is rounded down to in.
P
L
[ (45
= ft)(10 ft)(100 psf ) ] (0.001 kip/lb) 45 kips
1.2 wL2 L
Mu =
+ (1.2 PD + 1.6 PL )
8 3
1.2 76.22 30 2
30
= + (1.2 40.5 +1.6
= 45) 1216.3 kip-ft
8 3
Full Composite Action Available Flexural Strength:
Effective width of slab:
30.0 ft
=
b = 7.5 =ft 90 in.
eff 8
2
C= 0.85 f 'c A=
c 0.85 4 540
= 1836 kips
Depth of compression block within slab:
C 1,120
=a = = 3.66 in.
0.85 beff f 'c 0.85 (7.5 12) 4
Moment resistance of composite beam for full composite action:
a 3.66
d1 = (tc + hr ) = (4.5 + 3) = 5.67 in.
2 2
d
M = C d + P
n 1 y 2
23.9 12
=0.9 1,120 5.67 / 12 + 1,120 =1480.1 kip-ft
2
Partial Composite Action Available Flexural Strength:
Assume 50% composite action:
C = 0.5 Py = 560 kips
Depth of compression block within slab
C 560
=a = = 1.83 in.
0.85 beff f 'c 0.85 (7.5 12) 4
a 1.83
d1 = (tc + hr ) = (4.5 + 3) = 6.58 in.
2 2
Depth of compression block within steel section flange
Py C 1,120 560
=x = = 0.623 in.
2 b f Fy 2 8.99 50
=
d 2 x=
/ 2 0.311 in.
M n =C (d1 + d 2 ) + Py (d3 d 2 )
23.9
= 560 (6.58 + 0.312) + 1,120 0.312 12 =1, 408 kip-ft
2
M n = 0.9 M n = 0.9 1, 408 = 1, 267.3 kip-ft
Asa =
d sa 2 4 =
(0.75) 2 4 =
0.442 in 2
f c ' = 4 ksi
=E w=
c
1.5
=
f c ' 1451.5
4 3, 490 ksi
Rg = 1.0 Studs welded directly to the steel shape with the slab haunch
Rp = 0.75 Studs welded directly to the steel shape
Fu = 65 ksi
Qn = 0.5 0.4422 4 3, 490 1.0 0.75 0.4422 65
= 26.1 kips 21.54 kips controls
Shear Stud Distribution:
Qn
n=
Qn
560
= = 26 studs from each end to nearest concentrated load point
21.54
Add 3 studs between load points to satisfy maximum stud spacing requirement.
Moment Arm
Transformed from
Area Centroid Ay Ay2 I0
Element A (in2) y (in.) (in.3) (in,4) (in.4)
Slab 50.9 17.2 875 15,055 86
Deck ribs 17.0 13.45 228 3,069 13
W21x50 22.4 0 0 0 2,100
89.5 1,103 18,124 2,199
BS-5950-90 Example-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Design a composite floor with beams at 3-m centers spanning 12 m. The
composite slab is 130 mm deep. The floor is to resist an imposed load of 5.0
kN/m2, partition loading of 1.0 kN/m2 and a ceiling load of 0.5 kN/m2. The floor
is to be un-propped during construction.
BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are referenced from the first example, Design of Simply
Supported Composite Beam, in Chapter 21 of the Steel Construction Institute
Steel Designers Manual, Sixth Edition.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent
Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an excellent comparison with the independent results.
BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 2
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
S355 Steel:
E = 205,000 MPa, py = 355 MPa, s = 7850 kg/m3
Light-weight concrete:
E = 24,855 MPa, fcu = 30 MPa, c = 1800 kg/m3
Section:
UKB457x191x67
D = 453.6 mm, bf = 189.9 mm, tf = 12.7 mm, tw = 8.5 mm
Asteel = 8,550 mm2, Isteel = 29,380 cm4
Deck:
Ds =130 mm, Dp = 50 mm, sr = 300 mm, br = 150 mm
Shear Connectors:
d = 19 mm, h = 95 mm, Fu = 450 MPa
Loadings:
Self weight slab = 2.0 kN/m2
Self weight beam = 0.67 kN/m
Construction load = 0.5 kN/m2
Ceiling = 0.5 kN/m2
Partitions (live load) = 1.0 kN/m2
Occupancy (live load) = 5.0 kN/m2
BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
Pre-Composite Deflection:
wconstruction = 2.0 3.0 + 0.67 = 6.67 kN/m
BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 4
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
D Rq ( Ds D p ) ( Rs Rq ) 2 t f
M c =Rs + Rq Ds
2 Rc 2 Rf 4
br ( h D p ) 150 ( 95 50 )
k = 0.6 = 0.6 = 1.62 but k 0.8
Dp Dp 50 50
Design strength:
Q p =k 0.8 Qk =0.8 0.8 90 =57.6 kN
BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 5
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
However, the number of deck ribs available for placing shear studs must be based on
the beam clear span, and since the clear beam span is somewhat less than the 12 m
center to center span there are only 39 deck ribs available.
ETABS selects 72% composite action, which is the highest achievable and sufficient
to meet the live load deflection criteria. ETABS satisfies this 72% composite action
by placing one stud per deck rib along the entire length of the beam, plus a second
stud per rib in all the deck ribs except the mid-span rib since this is the location of
the beam zero moment and a stud in that rib would not contribute anything to the
total resistance of the shear connectors. The total resistance of the shear connectors
is:
Rq =2 19 Q p =38 57.6 =2,189 kN
Live Load Deflection:
The second moment of area of the composite section, based on elastic properties, Ic
is given by:
Asteel ( D+ Ds + D p ) beff ( Ds D p )
2 3
=
Ic + + I steel
4 (1 + e r ) 12 e
Asteel 8,550
=r = = 0.0356
beff ( Ds D p ) 3,000 (130 50 )
For light-weight concrete:
s =10
l =25
Proportion of total loading which is long term:
wdl + wsdl + 0.33 wlive 6.67 + 1.5 + 0.33 18
=l = = 0.541
wdl + wsdl + wlive 6.67 + 1.5 + 18
e = s + l ( l s ) = 10 + 0.541 ( 25 10 ) = 18.1
BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 6
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
5 18 (12,000 )
4
5 wlive L4
=c = = 28.8 mm
384 E I c 384 205,000 822 106
Adjust for partial composite action:
5 18 (12, 000 )
4
5 wlive L4
=s =
384 E I c 384 205, 000 294 106
= 80.7 mm non-composite reference deflection
partial = c + 0.3 (1 K ) ( s c )
= 28.9 + 0.3 (1 0.72 ) ( 80.7 28.9 )= 33.2 mm
BS-5950-90 Example-001 - 7
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
CSA-S16-09 Example-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Design a simply supported composite beam to span 12 m and carry a uniformly
distributed specified load of 18 kN/m live load and 12 kN/m dead load. Beams
are spaced at 3 m on center and support a 75 mm steel deck (ribs perpendicular to
the beam) with a 65 mm cover slab of 25 MPa normal density concrete.
Calculations are based on Fy = 345 MPa. Live load deflections are limited to
L/300.
CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are referenced from the design example on page 5-25 of the
Handbook of Steel Construction, Tenth Edition.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent
Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 2
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
ASTM A992 Grade 50 Steel
E = 200,000 MPa, Fy = 345 MPa, s = 7850 kg/m3
Normal weight concrete
E = 23,400 MPa, fcu = 20 MPa, c = 2300 kg/m3
Section:
W460x74
d = 457 mm, bf = 190 mm, tf = 14.5 mm, tw = 9 mm, T = 395 mm, rfillet=16.5 mm
, Z s 1, 650 103 mm3 , =
As = 9,450 mm2= I s 333 106 mm 4
Deck:
tc =65 mm, hr = 75 mm, sr = 300 mm, wr = 150 mm
Shear Connectors:
d = 19 mm, h = 115 mm, Fu = 450 MPa
Loadings:
Self weight slab = 2.42 kN/m2
Self weight beam = 0.73 kN/m
Construction load = 0.83 kN/m2
Superimposed dead load = 1.33 kN/m2
Live load = 6.0 kN/m2
CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
Moment Capacity:
M s = Z s 0.9 Fy =1, 650 103 0.9 345 106 = 512.3 kN-m
Pre-Composite Deflection:
wconstruction = 2.42 3.0 + 0.73 = 8.0 kN/m
w f L2 42 122
=
Mf = = 756.0 kN-m
8 8
Full Composite Action Available Flexural Strength:
Effective width of slab:
L 12,000
=
bl = = 3, 000 mm 3,000 mmm
4 4
Resistance of slab in compression:
f c 0.8125
=1 0.85 0.0015 =
=x
( As Fy C ' r ) 2
=
( 2,934
=
2,547 ) 103 2
3.05 mm
Fy b f 0.9 345 190
CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 4
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 5
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
Location of centroid of compressive force within steel section measured from top of
steel section:
0.5 t f Fflange + ( t f + 0.5 rfillet ) Ffillet + ( t f + rfillet + 0.5 x ) C web
d2 =
Cr
0.5 14 855 + (14 + 0.5 16.5) 60 + (14 + 16.5 + 0.5 44 ) 36.4
= 9.4 mm
951.6
Moment resistance of composite beam for partial composite action:
a d
M rc = Qr h r + tc + d 2 + Py d 2
2 2
26 457
= 1,031 75 + 65 + 9.4 103 + 2,934 9.4 10=
3
783.6 kN-m
2 2
CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 6
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
7, 666 106
=y = 238 mm
32, 265
2
I tr = I x A y = 2,917 106 32, 265 2382 = 1, 095 106 mm 4
Effective moment of inertia assuming partial composite action:
I s + 0.85 p 0.25 ( I tr I s )
I eff =
= 333 + 0.85 0.400.25 (1,095 333)
= 848 106 mm 4
5 18 (12,000 )
4
5wL L4
LL= 1.15 = 1.15 = 32.9 mm
384 EI eff 384 200,000 848 106
Bottom Flange Tension:
Stress in tension flange due to specified load acting on steel beam alone:
M1 8 120002
=
f1 = = 98.6 MPa
S x 8 1460 103
Bottom section modulus based on transformed elastic moment of inertia assuming,
per the original example, full composite action:
I tr 1,095 106
=St = = 1350 mm
d
( + y) (228.5 + 237.6)
2
Stress in tension flange due to specified live and superimposed dead loads acting on
composite section:
M 2 (18 + 4) 120002
=
f2 = = 168.5 MPa
St 8 2350 103
f1 + f 2 =
98.6 +168.5=267.1 MPa
CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 7
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 4
CSA-S16-09 Example-001 - 8
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
EC-4-2004 Example-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Consider an internal secondary composite beam of 12-m span between columns
and subject to uniform loading. Choose a UKB457x191x74 in S 355 steel.
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are referenced from the first example, Design of Simply
Supported Composite Beam, in Chapter 22 of the Steel Construction Institute
Steel Designers Manual, Seventh Edition.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent
Difference
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 2
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent
Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
The shear stud capacity Pr was entered as an overwrite, since it is controlled by
the deck profile geometry and the exact geometry of the example, which assumes
a deck profile with a rib depth of 60 mm, a depth above profile of 60 mm and a
total depth of 130 mm, cannot be modeled in ETABS, since in ETABS, only the
rib depth and depth above profile can be specified.
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 3
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
S 355 Steel:
E = 210,000 MPa, fy = 355 MPa, partial safety factor a = 1.0
Normal weight concrete class C25/30:
Ecm = 30,500 MPa, fcu = 30 MPa, density wc = 24 kN/m3
Section:
UKB457x191x74
ha = 457 mm, bf = 190.4 mm, tf = 14.5 mm, tw = 9 mm,
Aa = 9,460 mm2, Iay = 33,319 cm4, Wpl = 1,653 cm3
Deck:
Slab depth hs =130 mm, depth above profile hc = 60 mm,
Deck profile height hp = 60 mm, hd = hp + 10 mm for re-entrant stiffener,
sr = 300 mm, b0 = 150 mm
Shear Connectors:
d = 19 mm, h = 95 mm, Fu = 450 MPa
Loadings:
Self weight slab, decking, reinforcement = 2.567 kN/m2
Self weight beam = 0.73 kN/m
Construction load = 0.75 kN/m2
Ceiling = 0.5 kN/m2
Partitions (live load) = 1.0 kN/m2
Occupancy (live load) = 4.0 kN/m2
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 4
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 5
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
=
d 2 x=
/ 2 0.273 in.
The plastic axis is in the steel flange and the moment resistance for full composite
action is:
h h h ( R Rc ) 2 t f
M a , pl ,RD =
Rs d 2 +R c hs c - s
2 2 2 Rf 4
453.6 60 (3,358 2,550) 2 14.5
= 3,358 103 + 2,550 130 103 103
2 2 980 4
= 1020.0 kN-m
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 6
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
d2 19
0.8 fu v =0.8 450 1.25 =81.7 kN
4 4
Reduction factor for decking perpendicular to beam assuming two studs per rib:
=kt
0.7
nr
( b0 hp ) ( hsc hp ) 1 0.75 per EN 1994-1-1 Table 6.2
0.7 150
= ( 95 60 ) 1= 0.72 0.75
2 60
PRd = 0.72 73= 52 kN
Total resistance with two studs per rib and 19 ribs from the support to the mid-span:
Rq =2 19 52 =1,976 kN
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 7
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 3
EC-4-2004 Example-001 - 8
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Determine if the 14-ft.-long filled composite member illustrated below is
adequate for the indicated dead and live loads. The composite member consists
of an ASTM A500 Grade B HSS with normal weight (145 lb/ft3) concrete fill
having a specified compressive strength, fc = 5 ksi.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are referenced from Example I.4 from the AISC Design
Examples, Version 14.0.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent
Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
ASTM A500 Grade B Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 46 ksi, Fu = 58 ksi
5000 psi normal weight concrete
Ec = 3,900 ksi, f c = 5 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf
Section dimensions and properties:
HSS10x6x
H = 10.0 in, B= 6.00 in, t = 0.349 in
As = 10.4 in2, Isx = 137 in4, Isy = 61.8 in4
Concrete area
hi = H 2 t = 10 2 0.349 = 9.30 in.
=I cy + + + t2
12 6 36 2 3
(10 4 0.349) 5.303 0.349 (6 4 0.349)3 (92 64) 0.3494
= + + +
12 6 36
6 4 0.349 4 0.349 2
0.3492 ( )
2 3
= 114.3 in.4
2 2, 201, 000
=Pe = 769.7 kips
1.0 (14.0 12) 2
Available Compressive Strength:
Pno 688
= = 0.893 < 2.25
Pe 769.7
Therefore, use AISC Specification Equation I2-2:
Pno
Pn =Pno 0.658 Pe =0.75 687.5 (0.658)0.893 =354.8 kips
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Determine if the 14-ft.-long filled composite member illustrated below is
adequate for the indicated dead load compression and wind load tension. The
entire load is applied to the steel section.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are referenced from Example I.5 from the AISC Design
Examples, Version 14.0.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent
Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
ASTM A500 Grade B Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 46 ksi, Fu = 58 ksi
5000 psi normal weight concrete
Ec = 3,900 ksi, f c = 5 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Determine if the 14-ft.-long filled composite member illustrated below is
adequate for the indicated axial forces, shears, and moments. The composite
member consists of an ASTM A500 Grade B HSS with normal weight (145
lb/ft3) concrete fill having a specified compressive strength, f c = 5 ksi.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are referenced from Example I.1 from the AISC Design
Examples, Version 14.0.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent
Difference
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Materials:
ASTM A500 Grade B Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 46 ksi, Fu = 58 ksi
5000 psi normal weight concrete
Ec = 3,900 ksi, f c = 5 ksi, wconcrete = 145 pcf
Section dimensions and properties:
HSS10x6x
H = 10.0 in, B= 6.00 in, t = 0.349 in
As = 10.4 in2, Isx = 137 in4, Zsx=33.8 in3, Isy = 61.8 in4
Concrete area
ht = 9.30 in., bt = 5.30 in., Ac = 49.2 in.2, Icx = 353 in4, Icy = 115 in4
Compression capacity:
Nominal Compressive Strength:
cPn= 354.78 kips as computed in Example I.4
Bending capacity:
Maximum Nominal Bending Strength:
Zsx = 33.8 in3
bi hi 2
Zc = 0.192 ri 3 where ri = t
4
5.30 (9.30) 2
= 0.192 (0.349)
= 3
114.7 in.3
4
0.85 f c Zc
M D = Fy Z sx +
2
0.85 5 115 1, 798.5 kip-in.
=46 33.8 + = =149.9 kip-ft
2 12 in./ft
0.85 f c Z cn
M nx = M D Fy Z sn
2
0.85 5 7.76 1, 740 kip-in.
= 1,800 46 1.02 = = 144.63 kip-ft
2 12 in./ft
b M nx =0.9 144.63 =130.16 kip-ft
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
RESULTS COMPARISON
The ETABS total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing and slab
stresses are compared to the independent hand calculations in Table 1.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
1429.0 1428.3 -0.05%
Mu (Ultimate) (k-in)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
2.21 2.21 0.00%
As (sq-in)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
0.734 0.735 0.14%
(D+PTI), ksi
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
0.414 0.414 0.00%
(D+PTI), ksi
Normal Conc. Stress, top
1.518 1.519 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
1.220 1.221 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
1.134 1.135 0.09%
top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), ksi
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
0.836 0.837 0.12%
bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), ksi
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
=0.9
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 10 / 12 ft 0.150 kcf = 0.125 ksf (D) 1.2 = 0.150 ksf (Du)
Live, 0.100 ksf (L) 1.6 = 0.160 ksf (Lu)
Total =0.225 ksf (D+L) 0.310 ksf (D+L)ult
2
w l1
Ultimate Moment, M U
= 0.310 klf 322/8 = 119.0 k-ft = 1429.0 k-in
8
f 'c
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS f SE 1 0 0 0 0 (span-to-depth ratio > 35)
300 P
4, 000
1 7 5, 5 0 0 1 0, 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 .0 0 0 9 4 4
1 9 9, 6 2 4 p si 2 0 5, 5 0 0 p si
F u lt , T o ta l 1 8 1 .0 8
Stress block depth, a 1 .4 8 in
0 .8 5 f ' c b 0 .8 5 4 3 6
a 1 .4 8
Ultimate moment due to PT, M u lt , P T
F u lt , P T d 6 1 .0 8 9 0 .9 4 5 4 .1 k -in
2 2
Net ultimate moment, M net
M U
M u lt , P T
1 4 2 9 .0 4 5 4 .1 9 7 4 .9 k -in
M 9 7 4 .9
AS 2 .1 8 in
2
Required area of mild steel reinforcing, net
a 1 .4 8
fy d 0 .9 6 0 9
2 2
Note: The required area of mild steel reinforcing was calculated from an assumed amount of
steel. Since the assumed value and the calculated value are not the same a second iteration can be
performed. The second iteration changes the depth of the stress block and the calculated area of
steel value. Upon completion of the second iteration the area of steel was found to be 2.21in2
The stress in the tendon at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses = 216.0 27.0
= 189.0 ksi
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1 8 9 .0 2 0 .1 5 3 5 7 .8 3 kips
0 .1 2 5 3 3 2
2
Moment due to dead load, M D
8 4 8 .0 k -f t 5 7 6 k -in
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 216.0 27.0 13.5 = 175.5 ksi
The force in tendon at Normal, = 1 7 5 .5 2 0 .1 5 3 5 3 .7 0 kips
0 .1 2 5 3 3 2
2
Moment due to dead load, M D
8 4 8 .0 k -f t 5 7 6 k -in
0 .1 0 0 3 3 2
2
Moment due to dead load, M L
8 3 8 .4 k -ft 4 6 1 k -in
FPTI M DL
M 5 3 .7 0 1 0 3 7 .0 2 1 4 .8
Stress in concrete for (D + L+ PTF), f PT
A S 10 36 600
f 0 .1 4 9 1 .7 2 7 0 .3 5 8
f 1 .5 1 8 ( C o m p ) m a x , 1 .2 2 0 ( T e n s io n ) m a x
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 216.0 27.0 13.5 = 175.5 ksi
The force in tendon at Normal, = 1 7 5 .5 2 0 .1 5 3 5 3 .7 0 kips
0 .1 2 5 3 3 2
2
Moment due to dead load, M D
8 4 8 .0 k -f t 5 7 6 k -in
0 .1 0 0 3 3 2
2
Moment due to dead load, M L
8 3 8 .4 k -ft 4 6 0 k -in
A S 10 36 600
f 0 .1 4 9 0 .9 8 5
f 1 .1 3 4 ( C o m p ) m a x , 0 .8 3 6 ( T e n s io n ) m a x
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 24-foot-long spans in each
direction, as shown in Figure 1.
A B C D
1' 24' 24' 24' 1'
2'
4 17 18 19 20
10" thick flat slab
24'
13 14 15
3
Columns are 12" x 36"
24' with long side parallel
to the Y-axis, typical
9 10 11 12
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 150 pcf
f'c = 4000 psi
24'
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 20 psf
5 X 6 7 8 LL = 80 psf
1
2'
The slab overhangs the face of the column by 6 inches along each side of the
structure. The columns are typically 12 inches wide by 36 inches long, with the
long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 10 inches thick. Thick shell
properties are used for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 150 pcf and an f 'c of 4000 psi. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 20 psf. The live load
is 80 psf.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio, and D/C ratio with the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio and
D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this
example.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation for Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d = [(10 - 1) + (10 - 2)] / 2 = 8.5"
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 44.5 + 20.5 + 44.5 + 20.5 = 130"
20.5"
Y
Critical section for
4.25" 6" 6" 4.25"
punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
4.25"
18"
Side 1
Side 3
X
44.5"
Center of column is
18"
point (x1, y1). Set
this equal to (0,0).
4.25"
Side 4
D
C
V2 1
1
0.4955
2 44.5
1
3 20.5
V3 1
1
0.3115
2 20.5
1
3 44.5
The coordinates of the center of the column (x1, y1) are taken as (0, 0).
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for
punching shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical
section for punching shear, as identified in Figure 2.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
x2 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 b0 = 130
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
Ld 378.25 174.25 378.25 174.25 1105
Ldx2 3877.06 0 3877.06 0 0
Ldy2 0 3877.06 0 3877.06 0
x3
Ldx 2
0
0"
Ld 1105
y3
Ldy 2
0
0"
Ld 1105
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY
are given in the Sum column.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 N.A.
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
x2 - x3 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 - y3 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
Parallel to Y-Axis X-axis Y-Axis X-axis N.A.
Equations 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 N.A.
IXX 64696.5 86264.6 64696.5 86264.6 301922.3
IYY 39739.9 7151.5 39739.9 7151.5 93782.8
IXY 0 0 0 0 0
Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 0.1930 ksi
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of ACI 318-08 equations 11-34,
11-35 and 11-36 with the b0 and d terms removed to convert force to stress.
4
0.75 2 4000
vC 36 /12
0.158 ksi in accordance with equation 11-34
1000
40 8.5
0.75 2 4000
vC 130 0.219 ksi in accordance with equation 11-35
1000
0.75 4 4000
vC 0.190 ksi in accordance with equation 11-36
1000
Equation 11-34 yields the smallest value of vC = 0.158 ksi and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 0.193
Shear Ratio 1.22
vC 0.158
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
One dead load case (DL80) and one live load case (LL100) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 80 and 100 psf, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB100) is defined using the ACI 318-08
load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is
analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
the analysis, design is performed in accordance with ACI 318-08 using ETABS
and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the moments
and design reinforcements computed using the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
= 0.9
b = 12 in
As,min = 0.0018bh = 0.1296 sq-in
f 4000
1 0.85 0.05 c 0.85
1000
0.003
cmax d 1.875 in
0.003 0.005
amax = 1cmax = 1.59375 in
For the load combination, w and Mu are calculated as follows:
w = (1.2wd + 1.6wt) b / 144
wl12
Mu
8
As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[0.1296, (4/3)2.11] = 0.1296 sq-in
COMB100
wd = 80 psf
wt = 100 psf
w = 21.33 lb/in
Mu-strip = 55.22 k-in
Mu-design = 55.629 k-in
The depth of the compression block is given by:
2 Mu
a d d2 = 0.3128 in < amax
0.85 f c' b
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
Mu
As = 0.213 sq-in > As,min
a
fy d
2
As = 0.2114 sq-in
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
RESULTS COMPARISON
The ETABS total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing and slab
stresses are compared to the independent hand calculations in Table 1.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
1429.0 1428.3 -0.05%
Mu (Ultimate) (k-in)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
2.21 2.21 0.00%
As (sq-in)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
0.734 0.735 0.14%
(D+PTI), ksi
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
0.414 0.414 0.00%
(D+PTI), ksi
Normal Conc. Stress, top
1.518 1.519 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
1.220 1.221 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
1.134 1.135 0.09%
top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), ksi
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
0.836 0.837 0.12%
bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), ksi
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
=0.9
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 10 / 12 ft 0.150 kcf = 0.125 ksf (D) 1.2 = 0.150 ksf (Du)
Live, 0.100 ksf (L) 1.6 = 0.160 ksf (Lu)
Total =0.225 ksf (D+L) 0.310 ksf (D+L)ult
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 0.310 klf 322/8 = 119.0 k-ft = 1429.0 k-in
8
f'c
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS f SE 10000 (span-to-depth ratio > 35)
300 P
4, 000
175,500 10, 000
300 0.000944
199, 624 psi 205,500 psi
a 1.48
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT Fult , PT d 61.08 9 0.9 454.1 k-in
2 2
Net ultimate moment, M net M U M ult , PT 1429.0 454.1 974.9 k-in
M net 974.9
Required area of mild steel reinforcing, AS 2.18 in 2
a 1.48
f y d 0.9 60 9
2 2
Note: The required area of mild steel reinforcing was calculated from an assumed amount of
steel. Since the assumed value and the calculated value are not the same a second iteration can be
performed. The second iteration changes the depth of the stress block and the calculated area of
steel value. Upon completion of the second iteration the area of steel was found to be 2.21in2
The stress in the tendon at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses = 216.0 27.0
= 189.0 ksi
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 189.0 2 0.153 57.83 kips
Moment due to dead load, M D 0.125 3 32 8 48.0 k-ft 576 k-in
2
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 216.0 27.0 13.5 = 175.5 ksi
The force in tendon at Normal, = 175.5 2 0.153 53.70 kips
Moment due to dead load, M D 0.125 3 32 8 48.0 k-ft 576 k-in
2
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 216.0 27.0 13.5 = 175.5 ksi
The force in tendon at Normal, = 175.5 2 0.153 53.70 kips
Moment due to dead load, M D 0.125 3 32 8 48.0 k-ft 576 k-in
2
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 24-foot-long spans in each
direction, as shown in Figure 1.
A B C D
1' 24' 24' 24' 1'
2'
4 17 18 19 20
10" thick flat slab
24'
13 14 15
3
Columns are 12" x 36"
24' with long side parallel
to the Y-axis, typical
9 10 11 12
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 150 pcf
f'c = 4000 psi
24'
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 20 psf
5 X 6 7 8 LL = 80 psf
1
2'
The slab overhangs the face of the column by 6 inches along each side of the
structure. The columns are typically 12 inches wide by 36 inches long, with the
long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 10 inches thick. Thick shell
properties are used for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 150 pcf and an f 'c of 4000 psi. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 20 psf. The live load
is 80 psf.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio, and D/C ratio with the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio and
D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this
example.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation for Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d = [(10 - 1) + (10 - 2)] / 2 = 8.5"
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 44.5 + 20.5 + 44.5 + 20.5 = 130"
20.5"
Y
Critical section for
4.25" 6" 6" 4.25"
punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
4.25"
18"
Side 1
Side 3
X
44.5"
Center of column is
18"
point (x1, y1). Set
this equal to (0,0).
4.25"
Side 4
D
C
V2 1
1
0.4955
2 44.5
1
3 20.5
V3 1
1
0.3115
2 20.5
1
3 44.5
The coordinates of the center of the column (x1, y1) are taken as (0, 0).
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for
punching shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical
section for punching shear, as identified in Figure 2.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
x2 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 b0 = 130
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
Ld 378.25 174.25 378.25 174.25 1105
Ldx2 3877.06 0 3877.06 0 0
Ldy2 0 3877.06 0 3877.06 0
x3
Ldx 2
0
0"
Ld 1105
y3
Ldy 2
0
0"
Ld 1105
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY
are given in the Sum column.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 N.A.
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
x2 - x3 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 - y3 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
Parallel to Y-Axis X-axis Y-Axis X-axis N.A.
Equations 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 N.A.
IXX 64696.5 86264.6 64696.5 86264.6 301922.3
IYY 39739.9 7151.5 39739.9 7151.5 93782.8
IXY 0 0 0 0 0
Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 0.1930 ksi
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of ACI 318-11 equations 11-34,
11-35 and 11-36 with the b0 and d terms removed to convert force to stress.
4
0.75 2 4000
vC 36 /12
0.158 ksi in accordance with equation 11-34
1000
40 8.5
0.75 2 4000
vC 130 0.219 ksi in accordance with equation 11-35
1000
0.75 4 4000
vC 0.190 ksi in accordance with equation 11-36
1000
Equation 11-34 yields the smallest value of vC = 0.158 ksi and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 0.193
Shear Ratio 1.22
vC 0.158
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
One dead load case (DL80) and one live load case (LL100) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 80 and 100 psf, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB100) is defined using the ACI 318-11
load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is
analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
the analysis, design is performed in accordance with ACI 318-11 using ETABS
and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the moments
and design reinforcements computed using the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
= 0.9
b = 12 in
As,min = 0.0018bh = 0.1296 sq-in
f 4000
1 0.85 0.05 c 0.85
1000
0.003
cmax d 1.875 in
0.003 0.005
amax = 1cmax = 1.59375 in
For the load combination, w and Mu are calculated as follows:
w = (1.2wd + 1.6wt) b / 144
wl12
Mu
8
As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[0.1296, (4/3)2.11] = 0.1296 sq-in
COMB100
wd = 80 psf
wt = 100 psf
w = 21.33 lb/in
Mu-strip = 55.22 k-in
Mu-design = 55.629 k-in
The depth of the compression block is given by:
2 Mu
a d d2 = 0.3128 in < amax
0.85 f c' b
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
Mu
As = 0.213 sq-in > As,min
a
fy d
2
As = 0.2114 sq-in
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
RESULTS COMPARISON
The ETABS total factored moments, required mild steel reinforcing and slab
stresses are compared to the independent hand calculations in Table 1.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
1429.0 1428.3 -0.05%
Mu (Ultimate) (k-in)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
2.21 2.21 0.00%
As (sq-in)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
0.734 0.735 0.14%
(D+PTI), ksi
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
0.414 0.414 0.00%
(D+PTI), ksi
Normal Conc. Stress, top
1.518 1.519 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
1.220 1.221 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), ksi
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
1.134 1.135 0.09%
top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), ksi
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
0.836 0.837 0.12%
bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), ksi
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
=0.9
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 10 / 12 ft 0.150 kcf = 0.125 ksf (D) 1.2 = 0.150 ksf (Du)
Live, 0.100 ksf (L) 1.6 = 0.160 ksf (Lu)
Total =0.225 ksf (D+L) 0.310 ksf (D+L)ult
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 0.310 klf 322/8 = 119.0 k-ft = 1429.0 k-in
8
f'c
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS f SE 10000 (span-to-depth ratio > 35)
300 P
4, 000
175,500 10, 000
300 0.000944
199, 624 psi 205,500 psi
a 1.48
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT Fult , PT d 61.08 9 0.9 454.1 k-in
2 2
Net ultimate moment, M net M U M ult , PT 1429.0 454.1 974.9 k-in
M net 974.9
Required area of mild steel reinforcing, AS 2.18 in 2
a 1.48
f y d 0.9 60 9
2 2
Note: The required area of mild steel reinforcing was calculated from an assumed amount of
steel. Since the assumed value and the calculated value are not the same a second iteration can be
performed. The second iteration changes the depth of the stress block and the calculated area of
steel value. Upon completion of the second iteration the area of steel was found to be 2.21in2
The stress in the tendon at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses = 216.0 27.0
= 189.0 ksi
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 189.0 2 0.153 57.83 kips
Moment due to dead load, M D 0.125 3 32 8 48.0 k-ft 576 k-in
2
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 216.0 27.0 13.5 = 175.5 ksi
The force in tendon at Normal, = 175.5 2 0.153 53.70 kips
Moment due to dead load, M D 0.125 3 32 8 48.0 k-ft 576 k-in
2
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 216.0 27.0 13.5 = 175.5 ksi
The force in tendon at Normal, = 175.5 2 0.153 53.70 kips
Moment due to dead load, M D 0.125 3 32 8 48.0 k-ft 576 k-in
2
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 24-foot-long spans in each
direction, as shown in Figure 1.
A B C D
1' 24' 24' 24' 1'
2'
4 17 18 19 20
10" thick flat slab
24'
13 14 15
3
Columns are 12" x 36"
24' with long side parallel
to the Y-axis, typical
9 10 11 12
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 150 pcf
f'c = 4000 psi
24'
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 20 psf
5 X 6 7 8 LL = 80 psf
1
2'
The slab overhangs the face of the column by 6 inches along each side of the
structure. The columns are typically 12 inches wide by 36 inches long, with the
long side parallel to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 10 inches thick. Thick shell
properties are used for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 150 pcf and an f 'c of 4000 psi. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 20 psf. The live load
is 80 psf.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio, and D/C ratio with the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio and
D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for this
example.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation for Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d = [(10 - 1) + (10 - 2)] / 2 = 8.5"
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 44.5 + 20.5 + 44.5 + 20.5 = 130"
20.5"
Y
Critical section for
4.25" 6" 6" 4.25"
punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
4.25"
18"
Side 1
Side 3
X
44.5"
Center of column is
18"
point (x1, y1). Set
this equal to (0,0).
4.25"
Side 4
D
C
V2 1
1
0.4955
2 44.5
1
3 20.5
V3 1
1
0.3115
2 20.5
1
3 44.5
The coordinates of the center of the column (x1, y1) are taken as (0, 0).
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for
punching shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical
section for punching shear, as identified in Figure 2.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
x2 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 b0 = 130
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
Ld 378.25 174.25 378.25 174.25 1105
Ldx2 3877.06 0 3877.06 0 0
Ldy2 0 3877.06 0 3877.06 0
x3
Ldx 2
0
0"
Ld 1105
y3
Ldy 2
0
0"
Ld 1105
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY
are given in the Sum column.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
L 44.5 20.5 44.5 20.5 N.A.
d 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 N.A.
x2 - x3 10.25 0 10.25 0 N.A.
y2 - y3 0 22.25 0 22.25 N.A.
Parallel to Y-Axis X-axis Y-Axis X-axis N.A.
Equations 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 N.A.
IXX 64696.5 86264.6 64696.5 86264.6 301922.3
IYY 39739.9 7151.5 39739.9 7151.5 93782.8
IXY 0 0 0 0 0
Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 0.1930 ksi
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of ACI 318-14 equations 11-34,
11-35 and 11-36 with the b0 and d terms removed to convert force to stress.
4
0.75 2 4000
vC 36 /12
0.158 ksi in accordance with equation 11-34
1000
40 8.5
0.75 2 4000
vC 130 0.219 ksi in accordance with equation 11-35
1000
0.75 4 4000
vC 0.190 ksi in accordance with equation 11-36
1000
Equation 11-34 yields the smallest value of vC = 0.158 ksi and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 0.193
Shear Ratio 1.22
vC 0.158
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
One dead load case (DL80) and one live load case (LL100) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 80 and 100 psf, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB100) is defined using the ACI 318-14
load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is
analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
the analysis, design is performed in accordance with ACI 318-14 using ETABS
and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the moments
and design reinforcements computed using the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
= 0.9
b = 12 in
As,min = 0.0018bh = 0.1296 sq-in
f 4000
1 0.85 0.05 c 0.85
1000
0.003
cmax d 1.875 in
0.003 0.005
amax = 1cmax = 1.59375 in
For the load combination, w and Mu are calculated as follows:
w = (1.2wd + 1.6wt) b / 144
wl12
Mu
8
As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[0.1296, (4/3)2.11] = 0.1296 sq-in
COMB100
wd = 80 psf
wt = 100 psf
w = 21.33 lb/in
Mu-strip = 55.22 k-in
Mu-design = 55.629 k-in
The depth of the compression block is given by:
2 Mu
a d d2 = 0.3128 in < amax
0.85 f c' b
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
Mu
As = 0.213 sq-in > As,min
a
fy d
2
As = 0.2114 sq-in
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel reinforcing strength for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
A 914-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and is defined
as an A-Strip. B-Strips have been placed at each end of the span, perpendicular to
Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with
two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the A-Strip. The
self-weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-tensioning
forces are as follows:
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations
were compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification and
validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
156.12 156.17 0.03%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
16.55 16.60 0.30%
As (sq-cm)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
3.500 3.498 -0.06%
(0.8D+1.15PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
0.950 0.948 -0.21%
(0.8D+1.15PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
7.817 7.818 0.01%
top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
5.759 5.760 0.02%
bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fc = 30MPai fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
0.80
0.85 0.007 f 'c 28= 0.836
amax k u d = 0.836*0.4*229 = 76.5 mm
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m x 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) x 1.2 = 7.181 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.5 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 14.363 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 14.363 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 13.128 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 13.128 x (9.754)2/8 = 156.12 kN-m
8
f 'C bef d P
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS f SE 70
300 AP
30 914 229
1210 70
300 198
1386 MPa f SE 200 1410 MPa
0.85 f 'c b
2 159.12
0.229 0.2292 40.90
0.85 30000 0.80 0.914
Ultimate moment due to PT,
a 40.90
M ult , PT Fult , PT d 273.60 229 0.80 1000 45.65 kN-m
2 2
Net ultimate moment, M net M U M ult , PT 156.1 45.65 110.45 kN-m
Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses =1490 186 = 1304 MPa
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304 197.4 1000 257.4 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 257.4 102 mm 1000 26.25 kN-m
F M M PT 1.15 257.4 0.80 65.04 1.15 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D
A S 0.254 0.914 0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
f 1.275 2.225 MPa
f 3.500(Comp) max, 0.950(Tension) max
Tendon stress at Normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94= 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at Normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
Tendon stress at Normal = jacking stressing long-term =1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at Normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m, with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25-m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f 'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead
load consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The
live load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio,
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
dom = [(250 26) + (250 38)] / 2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
U = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
ax = 518 mm
ay = 1118 mm
Y
Critical section for
109 150 150 109 punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
109
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1118
The maximum design shear stress is computed along the major and minor axis of column
separately:
V* uM v
vmax 1.0 *
ud om 8V ad om
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of AS 3600-01 equation 11-35,
with the dom and u terms removed to convert force to stress.
2
0.17 1 f c
fcv min h = 1.803N/mm2 in accordance with AS 9.2.3(a)
0.34 f c
AS 9.2.3(a) yields the smallest value of fcv = 1.086 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 1.811
Shear Ratio 1.67
f cv 1.086
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa), with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the AS 3600-
2001 load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The
model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combinations.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
analysis, design is performed using the AS 3600-2001 code using ETABS and
also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
reinforcements computed using the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
= 0.8
b = 1000 mm
0.85 0.007 f 'c 28= 0.836
a max k u d = 0.8360.4125 = 41.8 mm
D f cf
2
Ast .min 0.22 bd
d fsy
= 0.22(150/125)20.6SQRT(30)/460100125
= 282.9 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.3 kN/m
M-strip* = 24.6 kN-m
As = 5.57966 sq-cm
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel reinforcing strength for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm, as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
A 914-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and is defined
as an A-Strip. B-Strips have been placed at each end of the span, perpendicular to
Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile). A tendon with
two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the A-Strip. The
self weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-tensioning
forces are as follows:
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the mid-span of the slab. Independent hand
calculations were compared with the ETABS results and summarized for
verification and validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
156.12 156.17 0.03%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Area of Mild Steel reqd, As
16.55 16.60 0.30%
(sq-cm)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
3.500 3.498 -0.06%
(0.8D+1.15PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
0.950 0.948 -0.21%
(0.8D+1.15PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress, top
7.817 7.818 0.01%
(D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress, bot
5.759 5.760 0.02%
(D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fc = 30MPai fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
0.80
2 1.0 0.003 f 'c = 0.91 > 0.85, Use 2 0.85
1.0 0.003 f 'c = 0.91 > 0.85, Use 0.85
amax k u d = 0.85*0.36*229 = 70.07 mm
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m x 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) x 1.2 = 7.181 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.5 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 14.363 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 14.363 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 13.128 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 13.128 x (9.754)2/8 = 156.12 kN-m
8
f 'C bef d P
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS f SE 70
300 AP
30 914 229
1210 70
300 198
1386 MPa f SE 200 1410 MPa
0.85 f 'c b
2 159.12
0.229 0.2292 40.90
0.85 30000 0.80 0.914
Ultimate moment due to PT,
a 40.90
M ult , PT Fult , PT d 273.60 229 0.80 1000 45.65 kN-m
2 2
Net ultimate moment, M net M U M ult , PT 156.1 45.65 110.45 kN-m
Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses =1490 186 = 1304 MPa
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304 197.4 1000 257.4 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 257.4 102 mm 1000 26.25 kN-m
F M M PT 1.15 257.4 0.80 65.04 1.15 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D
A S 0.254 0.914 0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
f 1.275 2.225 MPa
f 3.500(Comp) max, 0.950(Tension) max
Tendon stress at Normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94= 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at Normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
Tendon stress at Normal = jacking stressing long-term =1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at Normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m, with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25-m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f 'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio,
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
dom = [(250 26) + (250 38)] / 2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
U = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
ax = 518 mm
ay = 1118 mm
Y
Critical section for
109 150 150 109 punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
109
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1118
The maximum design shear stress is computed along the major and minor axis of column
separately:
V* uM v
vmax 1.0 *
ud om 8V ad om
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of AS 3600-09 equation 11-35,
with the dom and u terms removed to convert force to stress.
2
0.17 1 f c
fcv min h = 1.803N/mm2 in accordance with AS 9.2.3(a)
0.34 f c
AS 9.2.3(a) yields the smallest value of fcv = 1.086 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 1.811
Shear Ratio 1.67
f cv 1.086
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa), with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the AS 3600-
2009 load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The
model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combinations.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
analysis, design is performed using the AS 3600-2009 code using ETABS and
also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
reinforcements computed using the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
= 0.8
b = 1000 mm
2 1.0 0.003 f 'c = 0.91 > 0.85, Use 2 0.85
1.05 0.007 f 'c = 0.84 < 0.85, Use 0.84
a max k u d = 0.840.36125 = 37.80 mm
h f ct , f
2
Ast .min 0.24 bd
d f sy , f
= 0.24(150/125)20.6SQRT(30)/4601000150
= 370.356 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.3 kN/m
M-strip* = 24.6 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm, as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span,
perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile).
A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, was added to the A-
Strip. The self-weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-
tensioning forces are as follows.
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations
have been compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification and
validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
174.4 174.4 0.00%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
19.65 19.80 0.76%
As (sq-cm)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
5.058 5.057 0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fcu = 30 MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400 MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m x 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) x 1.4 = 8.378 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.6 = 7.661 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 16.039 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 16.039 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 14.659 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 14.659 x (9.754)2/8 = 174.4 kN-m
8
7000 f pu Ap
Ultimate Stress in strand, f pb f pe 1 1.7
l/d f cu bd
7000 1862(198)
1210 1 1.7
9.754 / 0.229 30(914)(229)
1358 MPa 0.7 f pu 1303 MPa
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT Fult , PT ( z ) / 257.2 0.192 1.15 43.00 kN-m
M NET 131.4
As = 1e6 1965 mm 2
0.87 f y z 0.87 400 192
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 257.4 102mm 1000 26.25 kN-m
FPTI M D M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f
A S 0.254 0.914 0.00983
where S=0.00983m3
f 1.109 3.948 MPa
f 5.058(Comp) max, 2.839(Tension) max
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25-m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a fcu of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d 250 26 250 38 2 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
u = 954+ 1554 + 954 + 1554 = 5016 mm
Y
Critical section for
327 150 150 327 punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
327
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1554
Maximum design shear stress in computed in along major and minor axis of column:
V 1.5M
x
veff , x f (BS 3.7.7.3)
ud Vy
V 1.5M
y
veff , y f
ud Vx
1126.498 103 1.5 45.7234 106
veff , y 1.0 1.0705
5016 218 1126.498 103 1554
The largest absolute value of v = 1.1049 N/mm2
Areas of reinforcement at the face of column for the design strips are as
follows:
As in Strip Layer A = 9494.296 mm2
As in Strip Layer B = 8314.486 mm2
BS 3.7.7.3 yields the value of v = 0.625 N/mm2 , and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 1.1049
Shear Ratio 1.77
v 0.6247
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the BS 8110-97
load combination factors, 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The model is
analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
the analysis, design was performed using the BS 8110-97 code by ETABS and
also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
reinforcements computed by the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
b = 1000 mm
For the load combination, w and M are calculated as follows:
w = (1.4wd + 1.6wt) b
wl12
M
8
As,min = 0.0013bwd
= 162.5 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 13.6 kN/m
M-strip = 27.2 kN-m
M-design = 27.2366 kN-m
The depth of the compression block is given by:
M
K = 0.05810 < 0.156
f cu bd 2
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
K
z d 0.5 0.25 0.95d =116.3283
0.9
M
As = 585.046 sq-mm > As,min
0.87 f y z
As = 5.850 sq-cm
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span
perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile).
A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the
A-Strip. The self weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-
tensioning forces are as follows:
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations
have been compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification and
validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
159.4 159.4 0.00%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
16.25 16.33 0.49%
As (sq-cm)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
7.817 7.818 0.01%
top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
5.759 5.760 0.02%
bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fcu = 30MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
c 0.65 , S 0.85
1 = 0.85 0.0015f'c 0.67 = 0.805
1 = 0.97 0.0025f'c 0.67 = 0.895
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m x 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) x 1.25 = 7.480 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 14.662 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 16.039 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 13.401 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 13.401 x (9.754)2/8 = 159.42 kN-m
8
2M *
Stress block depth, a d d 2
1 f 'c c b
2 159.42
0.229 0.2292 55.18
0.805 30000 0.65 0.914
a 55.18
M ult , PT Fult , PT d 265.9 0.229 0.85 45.52 kN-m
2 2
M NET 113.90
As = 1e6 1625 mm 2
0.87 f y z 55.18
0.87 400 229
2
Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses = 1490 186 = 1304 MPa
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304 197.4 1000 257.4 kN
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 257.4 102 mm 1000 26.25 kN-m
F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D
A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8 m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m 2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d 250 26 250 38 2 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
518 Note: All dimensions in millimeters
Y
Critical section for
109 150 150 109 punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
109
450
Side 1
Side 3
X
1118
V2 1
1
0.495
2 1118
1
3 518
V3 1
1
0.312
2 518
1
3 1118
The coordinates of the center of the column (x1, y1) are taken as (0, 0).
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for punching
shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical section for
punching shear as identified in Figure 2.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
x2 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 0 559 0 559 N.A.
L 1118 518 1118 518 b0 = 3272
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
Ld 243724 112924 243724 112924 713296
Ldx2 63124516 0 63124516 0 0
Ldy2 0 63124516 0 63124516 0
x3
Ldx 2
0
0 mm
Ld 713296
y3
Ldy 2
0
0 mm
Ld 713296
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY
are given in the "Sum" column.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
L 1118 518 1118 518 N.A.
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
x2 x3 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 y3 0 559 0 559 N.A.
Parallel to Y-Axis X-axis Y-Axis X-axis N.A.
Equations 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 N.A.
IXX 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 1.23E+11
IYY 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 3.86E+10
IXY 0 0 0 0 0
Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 1.792 N/mm2
The shear capacity is calculated based on the minimum of the following three limits:
2
c 1 0.19 f c
c
d
vv min c 0.19 s f c 1.127 N/mm2 in accordance with CSA 13.3.4.1
b0
0.38 f
c c
CSA 13.3.4.1 yields the smallest value of vv = 1.127 N/mm2 , and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 1.792
Shear Ratio 1.59
vv 1.127
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the CSA A23.3-
04 load combination factors, 1.25 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The
model is analyzed for these load cases and load combinations.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
the analysis, design is performed using the CSA A23.3-04 code by ETABS and
also by hand computation. Table 1 show the comparison of the design
reinforcements computed using the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1 also
shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
c = 0.65 for concrete
s = 0.85 for reinforcement
0.2 f c
As,min = bw h = 357.2 sq-mm
fy
b = 1000 mm
1 = 0.85 0.0015f'c 0.67 = 0.805
1 = 0.97 0.0025f'c 0.67 = 0.895
700
cb = d = 75.43 mm
700 f y
ab = 1cb = 67.5 mm
For the load combination, w and M* are calculated as follows:
w = (1.25wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
Mu
8
As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[357.2, (4/3)540.63] = 357.2 sq-mm
= 0.22(150/125)20.6SQRT(30)/460100125
= 282.9 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.5 kN/m
Mf-strip = 25.0 kN-m
Mf-design = 25.529 kN-m
The depth of the compression block is given by:
2M f
a d d2 = 13.769 mm < amax
1 f 'c c b
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span
perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile).
A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the
A-Strip. The self weight and live loads were added to the slab. The loads and post-
tensioning forces are as follows:
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations
have been compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification and
validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
159.4 159.4 0.00%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
16.25 16.33 0.49%
As (sq-cm)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
7.817 7.818 0.01%
top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
5.759 5.760 0.02%
bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fcu = 30MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
c 0.65 , S 0.85
1 = 0.85 0.0015f'c 0.67 = 0.805
1 = 0.97 0.0025f'c 0.67 = 0.895
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m x 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) x 1.25 = 7.480 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) x 1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 14.662 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 16.039 kN/m2 x 0.914m = 13.401 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 13.401 x (9.754)2/8 = 159.42 kN-m
8
2M *
Stress block depth, a d d 2
1 f 'c c b
2 159.42
0.229 0.2292 55.18
0.805 30000 0.65 0.914
a 55.18
M ult , PT Fult , PT d 265.9 0.229 0.85 45.52 kN-m
2 2
M NET 113.90
As = 1e6 1625 mm 2
0.87 f y z 55.18
0.87 400 229
2
Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses = 1490 186 = 1304 MPa
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304 197.4 1000 257.4 kN
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 257.4 102 mm 1000 26.25 kN-m
F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D
A S 0.254(0.914) 0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8 m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m 2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d 250 26 250 38 2 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
518 Note: All dimensions in millimeters
Y
Critical section for
109 150 150 109 punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
109
450
Side 1
Side 3
X
1118
V2 1
1
0.495
2 1118
1
3 518
V3 1
1
0.312
2 518
1
3 1118
The coordinates of the center of the column (x1, y1) are taken as (0, 0).
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for punching
shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical section for
punching shear as identified in Figure 2.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
x2 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 0 559 0 559 N.A.
L 1118 518 1118 518 b0 = 3272
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
Ld 243724 112924 243724 112924 713296
Ldx2 63124516 0 63124516 0 0
Ldy2 0 63124516 0 63124516 0
x3
Ldx 2
0
0 mm
Ld 713296
y3
Ldy 2
0
0 mm
Ld 713296
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY
are given in the "Sum" column.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
L 1118 518 1118 518 N.A.
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
x2 x3 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 y3 0 559 0 559 N.A.
Parallel to Y-Axis X-axis Y-Axis X-axis N.A.
Equations 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 N.A.
IXX 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 1.23E+11
IYY 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 3.86E+10
IXY 0 0 0 0 0
Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 1.792 N/mm2
The shear capacity is calculated based on the minimum of the following three limits:
2
c 1 0.19 f c
c
d
vv min c 0.19 s f c 1.127 N/mm2 in accordance with CSA 13.3.4.1
b0
0.38 f
c c
CSA 13.3.4.1 yields the smallest value of vv = 1.127 N/mm2 , and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 1.792
Shear Ratio 1.59
vv 1.127
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the CSA A23.3-
14 load combination factors, 1.25 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The
model is analyzed for these load cases and load combinations.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
the analysis, design is performed using the CSA A23.3-14 code by ETABS and
also by hand computation. Table 1 show the comparison of the design
reinforcements computed using the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1 also
shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show a very close comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
c = 0.65 for concrete
s = 0.85 for reinforcement
0.2 f c
As,min = bw h = 357.2 sq-mm
fy
b = 1000 mm
1 = 0.85 0.0015f'c 0.67 = 0.805
1 = 0.97 0.0025f'c 0.67 = 0.895
700
cb = d = 75.43 mm
700 f y
ab = 1cb = 67.5 mm
For the load combination, w and M* are calculated as follows:
w = (1.25wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
Mu
8
As = min[As,min, (4/3) As,required] = min[357.2, (4/3)540.63] = 357.2 sq-mm
= 0.22(150/125)20.6SQRT(30)/460100125
= 282.9 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.5 kN/m
Mf-strip = 25.0 kN-m
Mf-design = 25.529 kN-m
The depth of the compression block is given by:
2M f
a d d2 = 13.769 mm < amax
1 f 'c c b
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span,
perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile).
A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, was added to the A-
Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and
post-tensioning forces are as follows:
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the mid-span of the slab. Independent hand
calculations were compared with the ETABS results and summarized for
verification and validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
166.41 166.44 0.02%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
5.057 5.057 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress, top
7.817 7.818 0.01%
(D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress, bot
5.759 5.760 0.02%
(D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
Reinforcement Area
(sq-cm)
Design Moment
National Annex Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fc = 30MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
1.0 for fck 50 MPa
0.8 for fck 50 MPa
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) 1.35 = 8.078 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) 1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 15.260 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 0.914 m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 15.260 kN/m2 0.914 m = 13.948 kN/m
wl12
= 13.948 9.754 8 = 165.9 kN-m
2
Ultimate Moment, M U
8
f A
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS f SE 7000d 1 1.36 PU P l
fCK bd
1862(198)
1210 7000(229) 1 1.36 9754
30(914) 229
1361 MPa
400 1.15
1361
AS 2311 198 1536 mm
2
400 /1.15
f bd 0.85(30 /1.5)(914)(229)
AEquivTotal cd 0.23088 2362 mm
2
f yd 400 /1.15
1361
AEquivTotal AP AS 2362 mm
2
400 1.15
1361
AS 2362 198 1587 mm
2
400 1.15
Denmark:
400 1.2
1361
AS 2402 198 1594 mm
2
400 1.2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 257.4 102 mm 1000 26.25 kN-m
F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D
A S 0.254 0.914 0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m 2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. Thick shell properties are used for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f 'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation for Interior Column using ETABS Method
d 250 26 250 38 2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
u1 = u = 2300 + 2900 + 2436 = 5139.468 mm
A B
Column
Side 2 436
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1772
450
Center of column is
point (x1, y1). Set
436
this equal to (0,0). Side 4
D C
Maximum design shear stress in computed in along major and minor axis of column:
VEd k2 M Ed ,2u1 k3 M Ed ,3u1
vEd 1 (EC2 6.4.4(2))
ud VEdW1,2 VEdW1,3
c12
W1 c1c2 4c2 d 16d 2 2 dc1
2
9002
W1,2 300 900 4 300 218 16 2182 2 218 900
2
W1,2 2,929, 744.957 mm2
9002
W1,3 3 900 300 4 900 218 16 2182 2 218 300
2
W1,2 2, 271,104.319 mm2
For CEN Default, Finland, Norway, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden and UK:
C Rd ,c 0.18 c = 0.18/1.5 = 0.12 (EC2 6.4.4)
For Denmark:
CRd ,c 0.18 c = 0.18/1.45 = 0.124 (EC2 6.4.4)
200
k 1 2.0 = 1.9578 (EC2 6.4.4(1))
d
k1 = 0.15. (EC2 6.2.2(1))
As1
1 = 0.02
bw d
Area of reinforcement at the face of column for design strip are as follows:
For Denmark:
As in Strip Layer A = 9606.651 mm2
As in Strip Layer B = 8434.444 mm2
Average As = 9606.651 8434.444 2 = 9020.548 mm2
1 = 9020.548 8000 218 = 0.005172 0.02
For CEN Default, Denmark, Norway, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden and UK:
min 0.035k 3 2 f ck 1 2 = 0.035 1.9578 30
3/2 1/2
= 0.525 N/mm2
For Finland:
min 0.035k 2/3 f ck 1 2 = 0.035 1.9578 30
2/3 1/2
= 0.3000 N/mm2
For Denmark:
vRd ,c 0.124 1.9578 100 0.005015 30 0 = 0.606 N/mm
13 2
For Denmark:
v max 1.089
Shear Ratio 1.80
vRd ,c 0.606
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Eurocode 2-
04 load combination factors, 1.35 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The
model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. These moments
are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the
Eurocode 2-04 code by ETABS and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows
the comparison of the design reinforcements computed by the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1 also
shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Reinforcement Area
(sq-cm)
Strip Moment
National Annex Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
1.0 for fck 50 MPa
0.8 for fck 50 MPa
b = 1000 mm
For the load combination, w and M are calculated as follows:
w = (1.35wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
M
8
0.0013bw d
As ,min max fctm
0 . 26 bd
f yk
= 204.642 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.9 kN/m
M-strip = 25.8 kN-m
M-design= 25.8347 kN-m
For reinforcement with fyk 500 MPa, the following values are used:
k1 = 0.44
k2 = k4 = 1.25(0.6 + 0.0014/cu2) = 1.25
is assumed to be 1
x k1
for fck 50 MPa = 0.448
d lim k2
x x
mlim 1 = 0.294
d lim 2 d lim
1 1 2m = 0.08640
f bd
As cd = 540.024 sq-mm > As,min
f
yd
As = 5.400 sq-cm
x x
mlim 1 = 0.48
d lim 2 d lim
x k1
for fck 50 MPa = 0.60
d lim k2
For reinforcement with fyk 500 MPa, the following values are used:
k1 = 0.40
k2 = (0.6 + 0.0014/cu2) = 1.00
is assumed to be 1
1 1 2m = 0.10251
f bd
As cd = 544.61 sq-mm > As,min
f
yd
As = 5.446 sq-cm
For Finland:
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
cc = 0.85:
The depth of the compression block is given by:
M 25.8347 106
m = 0.097260
bd 2 f cd 1000 1252 1.0 0.85 30 /1.5
x x
mlim 1 = 032433
d lim 2 d lim
x k1
for fck 50 MPa = 0.5091
d lim k2
For reinforcement with fyk 500 MPa, the following values are used:
k1 = 0.44
k2 = 1.1
k4 = 1.25(0.6 + 0.0014/cu2) = 1.25
is assumed to be 1
1 1 2m = 0.10251
f bd
As cd = 544.61 sq-mm > As,min
f
yd
As = 5.446 sq-cm
For Denmark:
m, steel = 1.20
m, concrete = 1.45
cc = 1.0
The depth of the compression block is given by:
M 25.8347 106
m = 0.0799153
bd 2 f cd 1000 1252 1.0 1.0 30 /1.5
x x
mlim 1 = 0.294
d lim 2 d lim
x k1
for fck 50 MPa = 0.448
d lim k2
For reinforcement with fyk 500 MPa, the following values are used:
k1 = 0.44
k2 = k4 = 1.25(0.6 + 0.0014/cu2) = 1.25
is assumed to be 1
1 1 2m = 0.08339
f bd
As cd = 562.62 sq-mm > As,min
f
yd
As = 5.626 sq-cm
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm, as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement and
slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations
were compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification and
validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
174.4 174.4 0.00%
Mu (KN-m)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
19.65 19.80 0.41%
As (cm2)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
5.056 5.057 0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
2.836 2.839 0.11%
(D+PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.547 10.467 -0.76%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
8.323 8.409 1.03%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fc = 30 MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400 MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) 1.4 = 8.378 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) 1.6 = 7.661 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 16.039 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 0.914 m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 16.039 kN/m2 0.914 m = 14.659 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 14.659 9.754 8 = 174.4 kN-m
2
7000 f pu Ap
Ultimate Stress in strand, f pb f pe 1 1.7
l/d f cu bd
7000 1862(198)
1210 1 1.7
9.754 / 0.229 30(914)(229)
1358 MPa 0.7 f pu 1303 MPa
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT Fult , PT ( z ) / 257.2 0.192 1.15 43.00 KN-m
M 131.40
As = 1e6 1965mm 2
0.87 f y z 0.87 400 192
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 258.2 101.6 mm 1000 26.23 kN-m
F M M 258.2 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D PT
A S S
0.254 0.914 0.00983 0.00983
where S = 0.00983 m3
f 1.112 6.6166 2.668 MPa
f 5.060(Comp) max, 2.836(Tension) max
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 239.5 101.6 mm 1000 24.33 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m 2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a fcu of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d 250 26 250 38 2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 1.
u = 954+ 1554 + 954 + 1554 = 5016 mm
Y
Critical section for
327 150 150 327 punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
327
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1554
Maximum design shear stress in computed in along major and minor axis of column:
V 1.5M
x
veff , x f
ud Vy
V 1.5M
y
veff , y f
ud Vx
1126.498 103 1.5 45.7234 106
veff , y 1.0 1.0705
5016 218 1126.498 103 1554
The largest absolute value of v = 1.1049 N/mm2
Area of reinforcement at the face of column for design strip are as follows:
As in Strip Layer A = 9494.296 mm2
As in Strip Layer B = 8314.486 mm2
100 As
= 100 8904.391 8000 218 = 0.51057
bd
BS 3.7.7.3 yields the value of v = 0.625 N/mm2 , and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 1.1049
Shear Ratio 1.77
v 0.6247
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Hong Kong
CP-04 load combination factors, 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The
model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
analysis, design is performed using the Hong Kong CP-04 code by ETABS and
also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
reinforcements computed using the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Reinforcement
Strip Area (sq-cm)
Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
b = 1000 mm
For the load combination, the w and M are calculated as follows:
w = (1.4wd + 1.6wt) b
wl12
M
8
As,min = 0.0013bwd
= 162.5 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 13.6 kN/m
M-strip = 27.2 kN-m
M-design = 27.2366 kN-m
The depth of the compression block is given by:
M
K = 0.05810 < 0.156
f cu bd 2
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
K
z d 0.5 0.25 0.95d =116.3283
0.9
M
As = 585.046 sq-mm > As,min
0.87 f y z
As = 5.850 sq-cm
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm, as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement and
slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations
were compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification and
validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
174.4 174.4 0.00%
Mu (KN-m)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
19.65 19.80 0.41%
As (cm2)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
5.056 5.057 0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
2.836 2.839 0.11%
(D+PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.547 10.467 -0.76%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
8.323 8.409 1.03%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fc = 30 MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400 MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) 1.4 = 8.378 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) 1.6 = 7.661 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 16.039 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 0.914 m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 16.039 kN/m2 0.914 m = 14.659 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 14.659 9.754 8 = 174.4 kN-m
2
7000 f pu Ap
Ultimate Stress in strand, f pb f pe 1 1.7
l/d f cu bd
7000 1862(198)
1210 1 1.7
9.754 / 0.229 30(914)(229)
1358 MPa 0.7 f pu 1303 MPa
Ultimate moment due to PT, M ult , PT Fult , PT ( z ) / 257.2 0.192 1.15 43.00 KN-m
M 131.40
As = 1e6 1965mm 2
0.87 f y z 0.87 400 192
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 258.2 101.6 mm 1000 26.23 kN-m
F M M 258.2 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D PT
A S S
0.254 0.914 0.00983 0.00983
where S = 0.00983 m3
f 1.112 6.6166 2.668 MPa
f 5.060(Comp) max, 2.836(Tension) max
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 239.5 101.6 mm 1000 24.33 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m 2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a fcu of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d 250 26 250 38 2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 1.
u = 954+ 1554 + 954 + 1554 = 5016 mm
Y
Critical section for
327 150 150 327 punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
327
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1554
Maximum design shear stress in computed in along major and minor axis of column:
V 1.5M
x
veff , x f
ud Vy
V 1.5M
y
veff , y f
ud Vx
1126.498 103 1.5 45.7234 106
veff , y 1.0 1.0705
5016 218 1126.498 103 1554
The largest absolute value of v = 1.1049 N/mm2
Area of reinforcement at the face of column for design strip are as follows:
As in Strip Layer A = 9494.296 mm2
As in Strip Layer B = 8314.486 mm2
100 As
= 100 8904.391 8000 218 = 0.51057
bd
BS 3.7.7.3 yields the value of v = 0.625 N/mm2 , and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 1.1049
Shear Ratio 1.77
v 0.6247
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Hong Kong
CP-04 load combination factors, 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The
model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
analysis, design is performed using the Hong Kong CP-04 code by ETABS and
also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
reinforcements computed using the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Reinforcement
Strip Area (sq-cm)
Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
b = 1000 mm
For the load combination, the w and M are calculated as follows:
w = (1.4wd + 1.6wt) b
wl12
M
8
As,min = 0.0013bwd
= 162.5 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 13.6 kN/m
M-strip = 27.2 kN-m
M-design = 27.2366 kN-m
The depth of the compression block is given by:
M
K = 0.05810 < 0.156
f cu bd 2
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
K
z d 0.5 0.25 0.95d =116.3283
0.9
M
As = 585.046 sq-mm > As,min
0.87 f y z
As = 5.850 sq-cm
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm, as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span,
perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile).
A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the
A-Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and
post-tensioning forces are as follows:
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the mid-span of the slab. Independent hand
calculations were compared with the ETABS results and summarized for
verification and validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
175.60 175.69 0.05%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
19.53 19.775 1.25%
As (sq-cm)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fck = 30MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe =1210 MPa
s = 1.15
c = 1.50
= 0.36
xmax f 250
= 0.42 0.53 0.05 y if 250 f y 415 MPa
d 165
xu ,max
0.484
d
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) 1.50 = 8.976 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) 1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 16.158 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 0.914 m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 16.158 kN/m2 0.914 m = 14.768 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 14.768 9.754 8 = 175.6 kN-m
2
M
Compression block depth ratio: m
bd f ck
2
175.6
0.3392
0.914 0.229 2 0.36 30000
Required area of mild steel reinforcing,
xu 1 1 4 m 1 1 4 0.42 0.3392 x
0.4094 > u ,max 0.484
d 2 2 0.42 d
x
z d 1 u 229 1 0.42 0.4094 189.6 mm
d
Mu 175.6
ANET 1e6 2663 mm 2
f y / s z 400 1.15189.6
f 1435
As = ANET AP P 2663 198 1953 mm
2
fy 400
Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses =1490 186 = 1304 MPa
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304 197.4 1000 257.4 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 257.4 102 mm 1000 26.25 kN-m
F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D
A S
0.254 0.914 0.00983
where S=0.00983m3
f 1.109 3.948 MPa
f 5.058(Comp) max, 2.839(Tension) max
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m 2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f 'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
and D/C ratio obtained in ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear stress
ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly for
this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d 250 26 250 38 2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 1.
b0 = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
Y
Critical section for
109 150 150 109 punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
109
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1118
V2 1
1
0.495
2 1118
1
3 518
V3 1
1
0.312
2 518
1
3 1118
The coordinates of the center of the column (x1, y1) are taken as (0, 0).
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for punching
shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical section for
punching shear as identified in Figure 2.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
x2 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 0 559 0 559 N.A.
L 1118 518 1118 518 b0 = 3272
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
Ld 243724 112924 243724 112924 713296
Ldx2 63124516 0 63124516 0 0
Ldy2 0 63124516 0 63124516 0
x3
Ldx 2
0
0 mm
Ld 713296
y3
Ldy 2
0
0 mm
Ld 713296
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY
are given in the "Sum" column.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
L 1118 518 1118 518 N.A.
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
x2 x3 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 y3 0 559 0 559 N.A.
Parallel to Y-Axis X-axis Y-Axis X-axis N.A.
Equations 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 N.A.
IXX 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 1.23E+11
IYY 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 3.86E+10
IXY 0 0 0 0 0
vU
3272 218 1.23 1011 3.86 1010 0 2
14.272 106 1.23 1011 259 0 0 559 0
1.23 1011 3.86 1010 0 2
vU = 1.5793 0.1169 0.0958 = 1.3666 N/mm2 at point A
vU
3272 218 1.23 1011 3.86 1010 0 2
14.272 106 1.23 1011 259 0 0 559 0
1.23 1011 3.86 1010 0 2
vU = 1.5793 0.1169 + 0.0958 =1.5582 N/mm2 at point B
vU
3272 218 1.23 1011 3.86 1010 0 2
14.272 106 1.23 1011 259 0 0 559 0
1.23 1011 3.86 1010 0 2
vU = 1.5793 + 0.1169 + 0.0958 = 1.792 N/mm2 at point C
vU
3272 218 1.23 1011 3.86 1010 0 2
14.272 106 1.23 1011 259 0 0 559 0
1.23 1011 3.86 1010 0 2
vU = 1.5793 + 0.1169 0.0958 = 1.6004 N/mm2 at point D
Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 1.792 N/mm2
The shear capacity is calculated based on the minimum of the following three limits:
ks = 0.5 + c 1.0 = 0.833 (IS 31.6.3.1)
c = 0.25 = 1.127 N/mm 2
(IS 31.6.3.1)
vc = ks c= 1.141 N/mm2 (IS 31.6.3.1)
CSA 13.3.4.1 yields the smallest value of vc = 1.141 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 1.792
Shear Ratio 1.57
vc 1.141
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the IS 456-00
load combination factors, 1.5 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model is
analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
analysis, design was performed using the IS 456-00 code by ETABS and also by
hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design reinforcements
computed using the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of design reinforcements.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
s = 1.15
c = 1.50
= 0.36
= 0.42
b = 1000 mm
For the load combination, w and M are calculated as follows:
w = (1.5wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
M
8
0.85
As ,min bd
fy
= 230.978 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 13.5 kN/m
M-strip = 27.0 kN-m
xu ,max
0.466
d
The depth of the compression block is given by:
Mu
m
bd 2f ck
= 0.16
xu 1 1 4 m x
= 0.1727488 < u ,max
d 2 d
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is given by:
x
z d 1 u . = 115.9307 mm
d
Mu
As , = 583.027 sq-mm > As,min
fy / s z
As = 5.830 sq-cm
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span,
perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile).
A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, was added to the A-
Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and
post-tensioning forces are as follows:
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the mid-span of the slab. Independent hand
calculations were compared with the ETABS results and summarized for
verification and validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
165.90 165.93 0.02%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
5.057 5.057 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress, top
7.817 7.818 0.01%
(D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress, bot
5.759 5.760 0.02%
(D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fc = 30MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
1.0 for fck 50 MPa
0.8 for fck 50 MPa
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) 1.35 = 8.078 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) 1.50 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 15.260 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 0.914 m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 15.260 kN/m2 0.914 m = 13.948 kN/m
wl12
= 13.948 9.754 8 = 165.9 kN-m
2
Ultimate Moment, M U
8
f A
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS f SE 7000d 1 1.36 PU P l
fCK bd
1862(198)
1210 7000(229) 1 1.36 9754
30(914) 229
1361 MPa
400
1361
AS 2303 198 1629 mm
2
400
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 257.4 102 mm 1000 26.25 kN-m
F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D
A S 0.254 0.914 0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m 2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. Thick shell properties are used for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f 'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation for Interior Column using ETABS Method
d 250 26 250 38 2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
u1 = u = 2300 + 2900 + 2436 = 5139.468 mm
A B
Column
Side 2 436
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1772
450
Center of column is
point (x1, y1). Set
436
this equal to (0,0). Side 4
D C
Maximum design shear stress in computed in along major and minor axis of column:
VEd k2 M Ed ,2u1 k3 M Ed ,3u1
vEd 1 (EC2 6.4.4(2))
ud VEdW1,2 VEdW1,3
c12
W1 c1c2 4c2 d 16d 2 2 dc1
2
9002
W1,2 300 900 4 300 218 16 2182 2 218 900
2
W1,2 2,929, 744.957 mm2
9002
W1,3 3 900 300 4 900 218 16 2182 2 218 300
2
W1,2 2, 271,104.319 mm2
200
k 1 2.0 = 1.9578 (EC2 6.4.4(1))
d
k1 = 0.15. (EC2 6.2.2(1))
As1
1 = 0.02
bw d
Area of reinforcement at the face of column for design strip are as follows:
v max 1.089
Shear Ratio 1.89
vRd ,c 0.5777
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Italian NTC
2008 load combination factors, 1.35 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The
model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. These moments
are identical. After completing the analysis, design is performed using the Italian
NTC 2008 code by ETABS and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the
comparison of the design reinforcements computed by the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1 also
shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
1.0 for fck 50 MPa
0.8 for fck 50 MPa
b = 1000 mm
For the load combination, w and M are calculated as follows:
w = (1.35wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
M
8
0.0013bw d
As ,min max fctm
0 . 26 bd
f yk
= 204.642 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.9 kN/m
M-strip = 25.8 kN-m
M-design= 25.8347 kN-m
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
cc = 0.85:
The depth of the compression block is given by:
M 25.8347 106
m = 0.097260
bd 2 f cd 1000 1252 1.0 0.85 30 /1.5
x x
mlim 1 = 0.48
d lim 2 d lim
x k1
for fck 50 MPa = 0.60
d lim k2
For reinforcement with fyk 500 MPa, the following values are used:
k1 = 0.40
k2 = (0.6 + 0.0014/cu2) = 1.00
is assumed to be 1
1 1 2m = 0.10251
f bd
As cd = 544.61 sq-mm > As,min
f
yd
As = 5.446 sq-cm
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 915 mm wide and spans 9754 mm as, shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span,
perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile).
A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the
A-Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and
post-tensioning forces are as follows:
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the midspan of the slab. Independent hand calculations
were compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification and
validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
156.12 156.17 0.02%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
14.96 15.08 0.74%
As (sq-cm)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
7.817 7.818 0.01%
top (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
Long-Term Conc. Stress,
5.759 5.760 0.02%
bot (D+0.5L+PTF(L)), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Mild Steel Reinforcing Post-Tensioning
fc = 30MPa fpu = 1862 MPa
fy = 400MPa fpy = 1675 MPa
Stressing Loss = 186 MPa
Long-Term Loss = 94 MPa
fi = 1490 MPa
fe = 1210 MPa
b = 0.85
1 0.85 for f c 55 MPa
1 0.85 for f c 30,
c
cb d = 214.7
c f y Es
amax = 0.751cb = 136.8 mm
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) 1.2 = 7.181kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) 1.5 = 7.182 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 14.363 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 0.914 m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 14.363 kN/m2 0.914 m = 13.128 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 13.128 (9.754)2/8 = 156.12 kN-m
8
f'c
Ultimate Stress in strand, f PS f SE 70
300 P
30
1210 70
300 0.00095
1385 MPa f SE 200 1410 MPa
2M *
Stress block depth, a d d 2
f 'c b
2 156.12
0.229 0.2292 1e3 37.48 mm
0.85 30000 0.85 0.914
Ultimate moment due to PT,
a 37.48
M ult , PT Fult , PT d 274.23 229 0.85 1000 49.01 kN-m
2 2
Net ultimate moment, M net M U M ult , PT 156.1 49.10 107.0 kN-m
Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses =1490 186 = 1304 MPa
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304 197.4 1000 257.4 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 257.4 102 mm 1000 26.25 kN-m
F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D
A S 0.254 0.914 0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
f 1.109 3.948MPa
f 5.058(Comp) max, 2.839(Tension) max
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8 m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
A B C D 0 .3 m
0 .3 m
8 m 8 m 8 m
0 .6 m
4
0 .2 5 m t h ic k f la t s la b
8 m
C o lu m n s a r e 0 .3 m x 0 .9 m
w it h lo n g s id e p a r a lle l
8 m
t o t h e Y - a x is , t y p ic a l
2 C o n c r e t e P r o p e r t ie s
3
U n it w e ig h t = 2 4 k N /m
2
f 'c = 3 0 N /m m
8 m
Y
L o a d in g
2
D L = S e lf w e ig h t + 1 .0 k N /m
2
X L L = 4 .0 k N /m
1
0 .6 m
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a f 'c of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d 259 26 250 38 2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 2.
b0 = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
518 N o t e : A ll d im e n s io n s in m illim e t e r s
Y
C r it ic a l s e c t io n f o r
109 150 150 109 p u n c h in g s h e a r s h o w n
dashed.
A B
C o lu m n S id e 2
109
S id e 1
S id e 3
450
X
1118
C e n t e r o f c o lu m n is 450
p o in t ( x 1 , y 1 ) . S e t
t h is e q u a l t o ( 0 ,0 ) .
109
S id e 4
D
C
1
V 2 1 0 .4 9 5
2 1118
1
3 518
1
V 3 1 0 .3 1 2
2 518
1
3 1118
The coordinates of the center of the column (x1, y1) are taken as (0, 0).
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for punching
shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical section for
punching shear as identified in Figure 2.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
x2 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 0 559 0 559 N.A.
L 1118 518 1118 518 b0 = 3272
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
Ld 243724 112924 243724 112924 713296
Ldx2 63124516 0 63124516 0 0
Ldy2 0 63124516 0 63124516 0
x3
Ldx2
0
0 mm
Ld 713296
y3
Ldy 2
0
0 mm
Ld 713296
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY
are given in the "Sum" column.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
L 1118 518 1118 518 N.A.
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
x2 x3 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 y3 0 559 0 559 N.A.
Parallel to Y-Axis X-axis Y-Axis X-axis N.A.
Equations 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 5b, 6b, 7 5a, 6a, 7 N.A.
IXX 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 1.23E+11
IYY 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 3.86E+10
IXY 0 0 0 0 0
vU
1 .2 3 1 0 1 1 3 .8 6 1 0 1 0 0
2
3272 218
1 4 .2 7 2 1 0 1 .2 3 1 0 259 0 0 5 5 9 0
6 11
1 .2 3 1 0 1 1 3 .8 6 1 0 1 0 0
2
vU
1 .2 3 1 0 1 1 3 .8 6 1 0 1 0 0
2
3272 218
1 4 .2 7 2 1 0 1 .2 3 1 0 259 0 0 5 5 9 0
6 11
1 .2 3 1 0 1 1 3 .8 6 1 0 1 0 0
2
vU
1 .2 3 1 0 1 1 3 .8 6 1 0 1 0 0
2
3272 218
1 4 .2 7 2 1 0 1 .2 3 1 0 259 0 0 5 5 9 0
6 11
1 .2 3 1 0 1 1 3 .8 6 1 0 1 0 0
2
vU
1 .2 3 1 0 1 1 3 .8 6 1 0 1 0 0
2
3272 218
1 4 .2 7 2 1 0 1 .2 3 1 0 259 0 0 5 5 9 0
6 11
1 .2 3 1 0 1 1 3 .8 6 1 0 1 0 0
2
Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 1.792 N/mm2
The shear capacity is calculated based on the smallest of NZS 3101-06, with the bo and u
terms removed to convert force to stress.
1 2
1 f c
6 c
1 sd
v v m in 1 f c
= 1.141N/mm2 per (NZS 12.7.3.2)
6 b 0
1
f c
3
NZS 12.7.3.2 yields the smallest value of vv = 1.141 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear
capacity.
vU 1 .7 9 2
S h e a r R a tio 1 .5 7
vv 1 .1 4 1
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 kN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the NZS 3101-
06 load combination factors, 1.2 for dead loads and 1.5 for live loads. The model
is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
analysis, design is performed using the NZS 3101-06 code by ETABS and also
by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
reinforcements computed using the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of design reinforcements.
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for the load combination:
b = 0.85
b = 1000 mm
1 0.85 for f c 55MPa
1 0.85 for f c 30,
c
cb d = 70.7547
c f y Es
amax = 0.751cb= 45.106 mm
For the load combination, w and M* are calculated as follows:
w = (1.2wd + 1.5wt) b
wl12
Mu
8
f c
bw d 372.09 sq-mm
4 fy
As ,min max
1.4 bw d 380.43 sq-mm
fy
= 380.43 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 12.3 kN/m
M*-strip = 24.6 kN-m
M*-design = 24.6331 kN-m
The depth of the compression block is given by:
2 M*
a d d2 = 9.449 mm < amax
1 f c bb
M*
As = 523.799 sq-mm > As,min
a
b f y d
2
As = 5.238 sq-cm
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm, as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span,
perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile).
A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the
A-Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and
post-tensioning forces are as follows.
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the mid-span of the slab. Independent hand
calculations are compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification
and validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
174.4 174.4 0.00%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
19.65 19.80 0.76%
As (sq-cm)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) 1.4 = 8.378 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) 1.6 = 7.661 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 16.039 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 0.914 m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 16.039 kN/m2 0.914 m = 14.659 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 14.659 (9.754)2/8 = 174.4 kN-m
8
7000 f pu Ap
Ultimate Stress in strand, f pb f pe 1 1.7
l/d f cu bd
7000 1862(198)
1210 1 1.7
9754 / 229 30(914)(229)
1358 MPa 0.7 f pu 1303 MPa
K factor used to determine the effective depth is given as:
M 174.4
K 2
= 0.1213 < 0.156
f cu bd 30000(0.914)(0.229) 2
K
z d 0.5 0.25 0.95d = 192.2 mm
0.9
Ultimate force in PT, Fult , PT AP ( f PS ) 2 99 1303 1000 258.0 kN
Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses = 1490 186 = 1304 MPa
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304 197.4 1000 257.4 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 257.4 102 mm 1000 26.25 kN-m
F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D
A S 0.254 0.914 0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
f 1.109 3.948 MPa
f 5.058(Comp) max, 2.839(Tension) max
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m 2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a fcu of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d 250 26 250 38 2 = 218 mm
Refer to Figure 1.
u = 954+ 1554 + 954 + 1554 = 5016 mm
Y
Critical section for
327 150 150 327 punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
327
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1554
Maximum design shear stress in computed in along major and minor axis of column:
V 1.5M
x
veff , x f (CP 3.7.7.3)
ud Vy
V 1.5M
y
veff , y f
ud Vx
1126.498 103 1.5 45.7234 106
veff , y 1.0 1.0705
5016 218 1126.498 103 1554
The largest absolute value of v = 1.1049 N/mm2
Area of reinforcement at the face of column for design strip are as follows:
As in Strip Layer A = 9494.296 mm2
As in Strip Layer B = 8314.486 mm2
Average As = (9494.296+8314.486)/2 = 8904.391 mm2
100 As
= 100 8904.391/(8000 218) = 0.51057
bd
BS 3.7.7.3 yields the value of v = 0.625 N/mm2, and thus this is the shear capacity.
vU 1.1049
Shear Ratio 1.77
v 0.6247
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 KN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Singapore
CP 65-99 load combination factors, 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The
model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
the analysis, design is performed using the Singapore CP 65-99 code by ETABS
and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
reinforcements computed by the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
b = 1000 mm
For each load combination, the w and M are calculated as follows:
w = (1.4wd + 1.6wt) b
wl12
M
8
As ,m in 0 . 0013bw d
= 162.5 sq-mm
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 13.6 kN/m
M-strip = 27.2 kN-m
M-design = 27.2366 kN-m
The depth of the compression block is given by:
M
K = 0.05810 < 0.156
f cu bd 2
The area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
K
z d 0.5 0.25 0.95d =116.3283
0.9
M
As = 585.046 sq-mm > As,min
0.87 f y z
As = 5.850 sq-cm
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the slab stresses and the required area of
mild steel strength reinforcing for a post-tensioned slab.
A one-way, simply supported slab is modeled in ETABS. The modeled slab is 254
mm thick by 914 mm wide and spans 9754 mm, as shown in shown in Figure 1.
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
A 254-mm-wide design strip is centered along the length of the slab and has been
defined as an A-Strip. B-strips have been placed at each end of the span,
perpendicular to Strip-A (the B-Strips are necessary to define the tendon profile).
A tendon with two strands, each having an area of 99 mm2, has been added to the
A-Strip. The self weight and live loads have been added to the slab. The loads and
post-tensioning forces are as follows.
The total factored strip moments, required area of mild steel reinforcement, and
slab stresses are reported at the mid-span of the slab. Independent hand
calculations are compared with the ETABS results and summarized for verification
and validation of the ETABS results.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments, required
mild steel reinforcing, and slab stresses with the independent hand calculations.
INDEPENDENT ETABS
FEATURE TESTED DIFFERENCE
RESULTS RESULTS
Factored moment,
174.4 174.4 0.00%
Mu (Ultimate) (kN-m)
Area of Mild Steel reqd,
14.88 14.90 0.13%
As (sq-cm)
Transfer Conc. Stress, top
5.058 5.057 -0.02%
(D+PTI), MPa
Transfer Conc. Stress, bot
2.839 2.839 0.00%
(D+PTI), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, top
10.460 10.467 0.07%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
Normal Conc. Stress, bot
8.402 8.409 0.08%
(D+L+PTF), MPa
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATIONS:
Design Parameters:
Prestressing tendon, Ap
Mild Steel, As
229 mm
254 mm
25 mm
Length, L = 9754 mm 914 mm
Elevation Section
Loads:
Dead, self-wt = 0.254 m 23.56 kN/m3 = 5.984 kN/m2 (D) 1.4 = 8.378 kN/m2 (Du)
Live, = 4.788 kN/m2 (L) 1.6 = 7.661 kN/m2 (Lu)
Total = 10.772 kN/m2 (D+L) = 16.039 kN/m2 (D+L)ult
=10.772 kN/m2 0.914 m = 9.846 kN/m, u = 16.039 kN/m2 0.914 m = 14.659 kN/m
wl12
Ultimate Moment, M U = 14.659 (9.754)2/8 = 174.4 kN-m
8
f A
Ultimate Stress in strand, f Pd f pe 7000d 1 1.36 PU P l
fCK bd
1862(198)
1210 7000(229) 1 1.36 9754
30(914) 229
1361 MPa
2M d
Stress block depth, a d d 2
0.85 f cd b
2 174.4
0.229 0.2292 1e3 55.816 mm
0.85 20000 0.914
M NET MU M PT
174.4 43.12 131.28 kN-m
Tendon stress at transfer = jacking stress stressing losses = 1490 186 = 1304 MPa
The force in the tendon at transfer, = 1304 197.4 1000 257.4 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 257.4 102 mm 1000 26.25 kN-m
F M M PT 257.4 65.04 26.23
Stress in concrete, f PTI D
A S 0.254 0.914 0.00983
where S = 0.00983m3
f 1.109 3.948 MPa
f 5.058(Comp) max, 2.839(Tension) max
Tendon stress at normal = jacking stressing long-term = 1490 186 94 = 1210 MPa
The force in tendon at normal, = 1210 197.4 1000 238.9 kN
Moment due to dead load, M D 5.984 0.914 9.754 8 65.04 kN-m
2
Moment due to PT, M PT FPTI (sag) 238.9 102 mm 1000 24.37 kN-m
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab punching shear design in ETABS.
The numerical example is a flat slab that has three 8-m spans in each direction, as
shown in Figure 1.
0.3 m A B C D 0.3 m
8m 8m 8m
0.6 m
4
0.25 m thick flat slab
8m
3
Columns are 0.3 m x 0.9 m
with long side parallel
8m to the Y-axis, typical
2 Concrete Properties
Unit weight = 24 kN/m3
f'c = 30 N/mm2
8m
Y Loading
DL = Self weight + 1.0 kN/m 2
X LL = 4.0 kN/m2
1
0.6 m
Figure 1: Flat Slab for Numerical Example
The slab overhangs beyond the face of the column by 0.15 m along each side of
the structure. The columns are typically 0.3 m x 0.9 m with the long side parallel
to the Y-axis. The slab is typically 0.25 m thick. Thick shell properties are used
for the slab.
The concrete has a unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and a fck of 30 N/mm2. The dead load
consists of the self weight of the structure plus an additional 1 kN/m2. The live
load is 4 kN/m2.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the punching shear capacity, shear stress ratio
and D/C ratio obtained from ETABS with the punching shear capacity, shear
stress ratio and D/C ratio obtained by the analytical method. They match exactly
for this problem.
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
Hand Calculation For Interior Column Using ETABS Method
d 250 26 250 38 2 = 218 mm
b0 = 518+ 1118 + 1118 + 518 = 3272 mm
Y
Critical section for
109 150 150 109 punching shear shown
dashed.
A B
Column Side 2
109
Side 1
Side 3
450
X
1118
1
2 1 0.595
1118
1
518
1
3 1 0.405
518
1
1118
The coordinates of the center of the column (x1, y1) are taken as (0, 0).
The following table is used for calculating the centroid of the critical section for punching
shear. Side 1, Side 2, Side 3, and Side 4 refer to the sides of the critical section for
punching shear as identified in Figure 2.
x3
Ldx 2
0
0 mm
Ld 713296
y3
Ldy 2
0
0 mm
Ld 713296
The following table is used to calculate IXX, IYY and IXY. The values for IXX, IYY and IXY
are given in the "Sum" column.
Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Sum
L 1118 518 1118 518 N.A.
d 218 218 218 218 N.A.
x2 x3 259 0 259 0 N.A.
y2 y3 0 559 0 559 N.A.
Parallel to Y-Axis X-axis Y-Axis X-axis N.A.
Equations 5b, 6b 5a, 6a 5b, 6b 5a, 6a N.A.
IXX 5.43E+07 6.31E+07 2.64E+10 3.53E+10 1.23E+11
IYY 6.31E+07 1.39E07 1.63E+10 2.97E+09 3.86E+10
Maximum design shear stress in computed in along major and minor axis of column:
V pd 0.4M pd ,2u p d 0.4M pd ,3u p d
v pd 1 , (TS 8.3.1)
u p d V pdWm,2 V pdWm,3
vU
3272 218 1.23 1011 3.86 1010
10.882 106 1.23 1011 259 0
1.23 1011 3.86 1010
vU = 1.5793 0.0383 0.0730 = 1.4680 N/mm2 at point A
vU
3272 218 1.23 1011 3.86 1010
10.8821 106 1.23 1011 259 0
1.23 1011 3.86 1010
vU = 1.5793 0.0383 + 0.0730 =1.614 N/mm2 at point B
vU
3272 218 1.23 1011 3.86 1010
10.882 106 1.23 1011 259 0
1.23 1011 3.86 1010
vU = 1.5793 + 0.0383 + 0.0730 = 1.690 N/mm2 at point C
vU
3272 218 1.23 1011 3.86 1010
10.8821 106 1.23 1011 259 0
1.23 1011 3.86 1010
vU = 1.5793 + 0.383 0.0730 = 1.5446 N/mm2 at point D
Point C has the largest absolute value of vu, thus vmax = 1.690 N/mm2
The concrete punching shear stress capacity of a section with punching shear
reinforcement is limited to:
v pr f ctd 0.35 f ck c (TS 8.3.1)
vpd 1.690
Shear Ratio 1.32
v pr 1.278
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify slab flexural design in ETABS.
Simply
Simply
4 m span supported
supported
edge at wall
edge at wall
Free edge
Y 1 m design strip
X Free edge
One dead load case (DL4KPa) and one live load case (LL5KPa) with uniformly
distributed surface loads of magnitudes 4 and 5 KN/m2, respectively, are defined
in the model. A load combination (COMB5kPa) is defined using the Turkish TS
500-2000 load combination factors, 1.4 for dead loads and 1.6 for live loads. The
model is analyzed for both load cases and the load combination.
The slab moment on a strip of unit width is computed analytically. The total
factored strip moments are compared with the ETABS results. After completing
the analysis, design is performed using the Turkish TS 500-2000 code by ETABS
and also by hand computation. Table 1 shows the comparison of the design
reinforcements computed by the two methods.
RESULTS COMPARISON
Table 1 shows the comparison of the ETABS total factored moments in the
design strip with the moments obtained by the hand computation method. Table 1
also shows the comparison of the design reinforcements.
Reinforcement Area
Strip (sq-cm)
Load Moment
Level Method (kN-m) As+
CONCLUSION
The ETABS results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.
HAND CALCULATION
The following quantities are computed for all the load combinations:
m, steel = 1.15
m, concrete = 1.50
f ck 30
f cd 20
mc 1.5
f yk 460
f yd 400
ms 1.15
cu Es
cb d = 75 mm
cu Es f yd
amax = 0.85k1cb = 52.275 mm
where, k1 0.85 0.006 f ck 25 0.82 , 0.70 k1 0.85
0.8 f ctd
As ,min bd 325.9 mm 2
f yd
0.35 f cu 0.35 30
Where f ctd 1.278
mc 1.5
COMB100
wd = 4.0 kPa
wt = 5.0 kPa
w = 13.6 kN/m
M-strip = 27.2 kN-m
M-design = 27.2366 kN-m
The depth of the compression block is given by:
2 Md
a d d2 (TS 7.1)
0.85 fcd b
2 27.2366 106
a 125 1252 13.5518 mm
0.85 20 1000
If a amax (TS 7.1), the area of tensile steel reinforcement is then given by:
Md 27.2366 106
As 576 mm 2
a 13.5518
f yd d 400 125
2 2
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 435, 1984. Deflection of Two-way Reinforced Concrete Floor
Systems: State-of-the-Art Report, (ACI 435-6R-74), (Reaffirmed 1984),
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
ACI Committee 336, 1988. Suggested Analysis and Design Procedures for
Combined Footings and Mats (ACI 336-2R-88), American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan.
ACI Committee 340, 1991. Design Handbook In Accordance with the Strength
Design Method of ACI 318-89, Volume 3, Two-way Slabs (ACI 340.4R-91),
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
ACI Committee 340, 1997. ACI Design Handbook, Design of Structural Reinforced
Concrete Elements in Accordance with the Strength Design Method of ACI
318-95 (ACI 340R-97), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
ACI Committee 318, 1995. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 318-95) and Commentary (ACI 318R-95), American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan.
American Institute of Steel Construction. 1989. Manual of Steel Construction-
Allowable Stress Design. Chicago, Illinois.
ASCE, 7-02. ASCE Standard Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
Bathe, K.J. and E.L. Wilson. 1972. Large Eigenvalue Problems in Dynamic
Analysis. Journal of the Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE. Vol. 98, No. EM6, Proc.
Paper 9433. December.
Computers and Structures, Inc. 2012. Analysis Reference Manual. Computers and
Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California.
Corley, W. G. and J. O. Jirsa, 1970. Equivalent Frame Analysis for Slab Design,
ACI Journal, Vol. 67, No. 11, November.
DYNAMIC/EASE2. Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multistory Frame Structures
Using. DYNAMIC/EASE2, Engineering Analysis Corporation and Computers
and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California.
Engineering Analysis Corporation and Computers and Structures, Inc.,
DYNAMIC/EASE2. Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multistory Frame
Structures Using. DYNAMIC/EASE2, Berkeley, California.
REFERENCES 1
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
REFERENCES 2
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 5
Peterson, F.E. 1981. EASE2, Elastic Analysis for Structural Engineering - Example
Problem Manual. Engineering Analysis Corporation. Berkeley, California.
Prakash, V., G.A. Powell and S. Campbell. DRAIN-2DX. 1993. Base Program
Description and User Guide. Department of Civil Engineering. University of
California. Berkeley, California.
Prakash, V., G.A. Powell, and S. Campbell. 1993. DRAIN-2DX Base Program
Description and User Guide. Department of Civil Engineering. University of
California. Berkeley, California.
REFERENCES 3