Engineers Handbook PDF

Engineer’s
Handbook
For support and training on the full range
of CSC products, please contact...
Support: support@cscworld.com
Training: training@cscworld.com
Delivered by

:
CSC Offices Worldwide
UK Singapore United States
CSC (UK) Ltd. Civil & Structural CSC Inc
Yeadon House Computing [Asia] Pte Ltd 500 North Michigan Avenue
New Street 16 Collyer Quay #21‐00 Suite 300
Pudsey, Leeds Singapore 049318 Chicago
West Yorkshire IL 60611
LS28 8AQ USA
UK
Tel: 0113 239 3000 Tel:+65 6258 3700 Toll Free: 877 710 2053
Fax: 0113 236 0546 Fax:+65 6258 3721 Fax: 312 321 6489
EMail: sales@cscworld.com EMail: sales@cscworld.com EMail: sales@cscworld.com
Malaysia Australia International Enquiries

CSC WORLD (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd Civil & Structural CSC (UK) Ltd.
Suite B‐12‐5, Block B, Level 12 Computing Pty Ltd Yeadon House
North Point Offices Level 3 New Street
Mid Valley City 349 Coronation Drive Pudsey, Leeds
No.1, Medan Syed Putra Utara PO Box 1843 West Yorkshire
59200 Milton LS28 8AQ
Kuala Lumpur QLD 4064 UK
Malaysia Australia
Tel:+60 (0)3 2287 5970 Tel: 1300 882 393 Tel: +44 (0) 113 239 3000
Fax:+60 (0)3 2287 4950 Fax: 07 3378 5557 Fax: +44 (0) 113 236 0546
EMail: sales@cscworld.com EMail: sales@cscworld.com EMail: sales@cscworld.com
2013 Version 18
April 2 Delivered by

:
Disclaimer CSC (UK) Ltd does not accept any liability whatsoever for loss or damage arising from any errors
which might be contained in the documentation, text or operation of the programs supplied.
It shall be the responsibility of the customer (and not CSC)
• to check the documentation, text and operation of the programs supplied,
• to ensure that the person operating the programs or supervising their operation is suitably
qualified and experienced,
• and to ensure that program operation is carried out in accordance with the user manuals,
at all times paying due regard to the specification and scope of the programs and to the CSC
Software Licence Agreement.
Proprietary CSC (UK) Ltd, hereinafter referred to as the OWNER, retains all proprietary rights with respect to
this program package, consisting of all handbooks, drills, programs recorded on CD and all related
Rights materials. This program package has been provided pursuant to an agreement containing
restrictions on its use.
This publication is also protected by copyright law. No part of this publication may be copied or
distributed, transmitted, transcribed, stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any human or
computer language, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, magnetic, manual or
otherwise, or disclosed to third parties without the express written permission of the OWNER.
This confidentiality of the proprietary information and trade secrets of the OWNER shall be
construed in accordance with and enforced under the laws of the United Kingdom.
Orion documentation: Orion software:
© CSC (UK) Ltd 2013 © CSC (UK) Ltd 2013
All rights reserved. All rights reserved.
Trademarks Orion™ is a trademark of CSC (UK) Ltd
Tedds® is a registered trademark of CSC (UK) Ltd.
Fastrak™ is a trademark of CSC (UK) Ltd.
The CSC logo is a trademark of CSC (UK) Ltd.
Autodesk and Revit are registered trademarks or registered trademarks of Autodesk Inc. in the
USA and/or other countries.
Microsoft and Windows are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation
in the United States and/or other countries.
Acrobat® Reader Copyright © 1987‐07/02/13 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights
reserved. Adobe and Acrobat are trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated which
may be registered in certain jurisdictions.
All other trademarks acknowledged.
.
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Chapter 1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Modelling Analysis and Design Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Build the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Derive Beam Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
General Building Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Design and Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter 2 Modelling Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Modelling Inclined and Lowered Members . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Sloping and Lowered Slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Sloping and Lowered Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Sloping and Lowered Columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Sloping and Lowered Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Working With Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Modelling Curved Axes and Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Curved Axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The Curved Axis Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Curved Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
The Curved Beam Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
How many segments to use? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Linking Angled Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Columns and Walls Spanning More Than One Storey . . . . . . . . . 37
Example Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
User Defined Supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
What is a default support? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
When might a default support be inappropriate? . . . . . . . . . . 40
Specifying a User Defined Support . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Applying a User Defined Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
User Defined Supports ‐ Trouble shooting . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Stepped Foundation Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Default Supports Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Single Storey Example of the Default Supports Method . . . . . . . . . 43
Two Storey Example of the Default Supports Method . . . . . . . . . . 44
User Defined Supports Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Example of the User Defined Supports Method . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Beams with Varying Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Example Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Pinned Member Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
To Pin a Single Column. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
To Pin Multiple Columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
To Remove the Hinges from the Columns . . . . . . . . . . . 48
To Pin a Single Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
To Pin Multiple Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
To Remove the Hinges from the Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Chapter 3 Beam Loads and Load Decomposition Methods . . . . . . . . 50
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Modifying Beam Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Beam Loads Dialog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
How to Define a New Point Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
How to Define a New Uniformly Distributed Load . . . . . . . . . . 52
How to Define a New Partial Distributed Load . . . . . . . . . . 53
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Using the Load Generator .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
.
Using the vertex table . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
How to Define a New Load on an Inclined Beam . . . . . . . . . . 55
Switching between Yield Line and FE load Decomposition . . . . . . . 57
What is Load Decomposition? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Why switch to an FE method? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Example of FE Method for Slab Load Decomposition . . . . . . . . . 59
Why retain the traditional (yield line) method? . . . . . . . . . . 63
Chapter 4 Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Chapter 5 General Building Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Structural Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Diaphragm Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Slabs to define rigid diaphragms (Default Setting) .
. . . . . . . . . 68
Single rigid diaphragm at each floor level .
. . . . . . . . . . 69
No rigid diaphragm floor levels . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 69
Excluding Specific Slabs from Diaphragms . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Limitations ‐ diaphragm modelling and inclined planes
. . . . . . . . 70
Case Study 1 ‐ single storey pitched frame . . . . . . . . . . . 71
.
Case Study 2 ‐ storeys linked by inclined planes . . . . . . . . . 74
Global Constraints . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 77
Pattern Loading . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 77
Rigid Zones . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 77
Rigid Zones – None . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 79
Rigid Zones – Reduced by 25% . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 79
Rigid Zones – Max . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 80
Discussion . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 81
Rigid Links . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 82
Shear Walls and Core Wall Systems . .
. . . . . . . . . . 84
3D Effects . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 84
Continuous Beams . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 85
Effects of one Member on Another . .
. . . . . . . . . . 87
Sway Effects . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 89
Transfer Beams . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 89
Stiffness adjustments . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 90
Flat Slab Construction . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 90
Transfer Levels. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 91
Supports . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 91
Building Analysis Problems – Reviewing/Understanding . . . . . . . . 93
What are Errors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
What are Warnings?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Building Model Validity Checking Errors . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Beam Load Analysis Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Building Analysis Errors and Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Overview of Axial Load Comparison Report . . . . . . . . . . 96
Table 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Table 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Comparisons between tables 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Table 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Table 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Chapter 6 Eigenvalue Analysis . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Eigenvalue Analysis Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Controlling the Storey Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Model Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Controlling the Number of Mode Shapes Required . . . . . . . . . 111
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Graphical Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Numerical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Chapter 7 Staged Construction Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Simple Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Staged Construction Modelling and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 115
Model Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Staged Loading Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Stage Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Combining multiple floors into a single stage . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Combining the entire structure into a single stage . . . . . . . . . . 118
Setting the Duration of Each Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Analysis Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Modulus of Elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
FE Merging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Simulaneously designing for FE merged forces and the results of a completely unstaged analysis. . . . 121
Chapter 8 Analysis and Design using FE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Model Generation Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Column / Shear Wall Model Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Beam Stiffness Multiplier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Slab Stiffness Multiplier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Column and Wall Stiffness Multipliers . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Cracking and Creep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Include Column Sections in FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Include Slab Plates in FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Consider Beam Torsional Stiffness. . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Include Upper Storey Column Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Upper Storey Column Loads Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Floor Mesh and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Batch FE Chasedown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Meshing and Analysing your Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
If Slab Plates are NOT included . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
If Slab Plates are included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Validity Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Mesh Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Mesh Uniformity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Effect of Holes and Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Mesh Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Reviewing Results – Contours and Strips . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Worked Example – Beam and Slab Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
FE Mesh Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Review of Contouring Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Deflection Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Mx and My Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
M1 and M2 Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Plots Including Wood and Armer adjustments . . . . . . . . . . 140
Steel Reinforcing Requirement Contours . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Other Contouring Adjustment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Slab Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Effects of Adjusting the Beam and Slab Stiffnesses . . . . . . . . . . 148
Effects of Wood and Armer Moment adjustments on a Regular Slab . . . . . . . 152
Reinforcement Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Merging Beam Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
What does this option do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
When might you use this option? . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Option 1 – A Plateless Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Checking the Beam Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Solution 2 – A Meshed Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Checking the Beam Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Merging Column Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
What does this option do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
When might you use this option? . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Chapter 9 Building Sway and Differential Axial Deformation Effects . . . . . . 164

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Chapter 10 Wall Modelling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Analytical Idealisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Cases where one wall option is Preferable . . . . . . . . . . 165
Option to Check Both Ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Wall Panel Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Forcing Walls to resist all lateral loads . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Adjust Model Stiffnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Pin the Columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Sway Effects Under Gravity Load . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Fully Framed Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Why does this sway happen? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Structures Incorporating Flat Slab Areas . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Slab Loads – Yield Line Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Slab Loads – FE Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Load Eccentricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Construction and Creep Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Discrete Cores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Results based on an FE Chase Down . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Closing Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Chapter 11 Sway Deflection Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Comparison of Orion's alternative wall modelling options . . . . . . . 179
Compare analysis results using other software . . . . . . . . . . 180
Chapter 12 Overview of Bracing and Sway Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . 182
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Introduction . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 182
Automatic Assessment of Sway Sensitivity .. . . . . . . . . . 182
User Defined Bracing . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 182
Classification Requirements of each code .. . . . . . . . . . 183
BS8110 (similarly CP65 and HK‐2004) . .. . . . . . . . . . 183
ACI 318‐02 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 184
EC2 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 185
Implementation of EC2 Classification in Orion . . . . . . . . . . 187
Setting the Braced/Bracing Members . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Assessment of Sway Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Worked Example for a Sway Sensitive EC2 Structure . . . . . . . . . 188
Model Analysis Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
ACI Classification (for comparison) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
EC2 Classification to Annex H . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Application of Load Amplification Factors . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Chapter 13 Overview of Differential Axial Deformation Effects in 3D Analysis of Buildings . 194

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Opening Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Example 20 Storey Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Traditional Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Emulating the Traditional Approach in Orion . . . . . . . . . . 200
Sub‐Floor Analysis (FE Chasedown) . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Building Analysis, area factor adjustment methods . . . . . . . . . . 201
Why do the two models give such different answers? . . . . . . . . . . 204
How do we eliminate this effect if we want to? . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Increasing the column area factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
What is a reasonable upper limit for the column area factor adjustment? . . . . . . 209
Detailed comparisons of the analysis results . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Is it acceptable to simply emulate the traditional design result? . . . . . . . 211
Ignoring differential axial displacements . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Making allowances for differential axial displacements . . . . . . . . 212
What is a reasonable lower limit for the area factor adjustment? . . . . . . . 212
What is the impact on the design when both upper and lower‐bounds are taken into consideration? . 213
Consider Case where AF = 2.7 is upper bound and AF = 1.5 is the lower bound: . . . . . . 213
Consider Case where AF = 4.0 is upper bound and AF = 1.0 is the lower bound: . . . . . . 213
Consider Case where FE Chasedown is upper bound and AF = 1.5 is the lower bound: . . . . . 214
What is the impact on the design when Pattern Loading is Introduced? . . . . . . 214
Conclusion on Design Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Overall Summary of Suggested Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Closing Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Typical Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
What answers are we trying to get? . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Fixed Values for Area Adjustment Factor . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Side Effects on Lateral Load Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Will FE Chasedown also eliminate differential axial deformation? . . . . . . . 217
Is this going to result in uncompetitive over design? . . . . . . . . . 217
Could I avoid all this complication if Staged Construction Analysis were used? . . . . . 217
DADE Analysis & Design Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Chapter 14 Using Staged Construction Analysis to Emulate ‘Traditional’ Design . . . . 221

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Worked Example: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Previous Results (from FE Analysis and Unstaged Building Analysis) . . . . . . . 222
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Sub‐Floor Analysis (FE Chasedown) . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Building Analysis without Area Factor adjustment .
. . . . . . . . . 222
Building Analysis with Area Factor adjustment . . . . . . . . . . 222
Staged Construction Analysis Result . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Does Staged Analysis eliminate DADE? . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Use of Staged Construction as the upper bound solution . . . . . . . . 226
Chapter 15 Design and Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Chapter 16 Slab Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Slab Strip Errors – Reviewing/Understanding . . . . . . . . . . 228
No. of Slabs and Beams along strip is not consistent! . . . . . . . . . 228
Creating Member… (but nothing seems to happen) . . . . . . . . . . 228
Chapter 17 Beam Design to BS8110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Beam Design Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
The BS8110 Beam Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
1. Check slenderness limits for lateral stability‐ Cl 3.4.1.6 . . . . . . . . 230
2. Rectangular or flanged ‐ Cl 3.4.1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
3. Analysis of Sections ‐ Cl 3.4.4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
4. Design for Bending‐ Cl 3.4.4.4 and Cl 3.4.4.5 . . . . . . . . . . 231
5. Design for Shear ‐ Cl 3.4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
6. Design for Torsion ‐ BS8110‐2:1985 Cl 2.4 . . . . . . . . . . 234
7. Deflection Checks ‐ Cl 3.4.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Worked Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
The Design Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Beam Design Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Performing the Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Design for Bending ‐ Cl 3.4.4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Design for Shear ‐ Cl 3.4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Design for Torsion ‐ BS8110‐2:1985 Cl 2.4 . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Deflection Checks ‐ Cl 3.4.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Output Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Chapter 18 Beam Detailing . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Introduction . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 245
The Design and Detailing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
The Design Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
The Parameters Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
The Steel Bar Selection Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
The Curtailment Tab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
The Detailing Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
The Layers Tab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Overview of Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Pattern 1 – The Splice Bar Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Pattern 2 – The Alternative Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Pattern 3 – The Hanger Bar Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
The Bent‐Up Pattern Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Overview of Beam Bar Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Minimum Top and Bottom Steel Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Maximum Tension Steel Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Maximum Compression Steel Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Maximum Compression Steel Spacing ‐ Cantilever beams . . . . . . . . . 255
Maximum Bar Spacing for Crack Control (EC2 only) . . . . . . . . . . 255
Detailed Example and Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Basic Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Design Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Parameters Tab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Bar Selection Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Curtailment Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Detailing Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Initial Design and Drawing Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Effects of Applying Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Limiting the Bar Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Merging Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
Minimum Tension Lap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Stop Using 2nd Support and Span Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Extend and Merge End Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Extend Support Bars Symmetrically . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
Standardise Link Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Uniform Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Beam Grouping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Chapter 19 Column Design to BS8110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
The BS8110 Column Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
1. Braced or unbraced ‐ Cl 3.8.1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
2. Calculate effective height‐ Cl 3.8.1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
3. Check slenderness limits‐ Cl 3.8.1.7 & 3.8.1.8 . . . . . . . . . . 285
4. Classify as short or slender‐ Cl 3.8.1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . 285
5. If slender ‐ calculate M_add‐ Cl 3.8.3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . 285
6. Calculate minimum moments ‐ Cl 3.8.2.4 . . . . . . . . . . . 286
7a. If braced, calculate design moments about each axis ‐ Cl 3.8.3.2 . . . . . . . 286
7b. If unbraced, calculate design moments about each axis ‐ Cl 3.8.3.7 . . . . . . 286
8. Calculate equivalent uni‐axial design moments ‐ Cl 3.8.4.5 . . . . . . . . 286
9. Member Design ‐ Cl 3.8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Worked Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
The Design Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Column Design Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Braced Rectangular Column Example . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Performing the Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
1. Braced or unbraced ‐ Cl 3.8.1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
2. Calculate effective height‐ Cl 3.8.1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
3. Check slenderness limits ‐ Cl 3.8.1.7 & 3.8.1.8 . . . . . . . . . . 294
4. Classify as short or slender ‐ Cl 3.8.1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . 294
5. If slender ‐ calculate Madd‐ Cl 3.8.3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . 294
6. Calculate minimum moments ‐ Cl 3.8.2.4 . . . . . . . . . . . 295
7. Calculate design moments about each axis ‐ Cl 3.8.3.2. . . . . . . . . 296
8. Calculate equivalent uni‐axial design moments ‐ Cl 3.8.4.5 . . . . . . . . 297
9. Member Design ‐ Cl 3.8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Cross check of the above solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Bi‐Axial Design Method Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Braced Circular Column Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
1. Braced or unbraced ‐ Cl 3.8.1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
2. Calculate effective height‐ Cl 3.8.1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . 303
5. If slender ‐ calculate Madd‐ Cl 3.8.3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . 304
6. Calculate minimum moments ‐ Cl 3.8.2.4 . . . . . . . . . . 304
7. Calculate design moments about each axis ‐ Cl 3.8.3.2 . . . . . . . . 304
8. Calculate equivalent uni‐axial design moments ‐ Cl 3.8.4.5 . . . . . . . 305
9. Member Design ‐ Cl 3.8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Unbraced Circular Column Example . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
1. Braced or unbraced ‐ Cl 3.8.1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
2. Calculate effective height‐ Cl 3.8.1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . 306
5. If slender ‐ calculate Madd ‐ Cl 3.8.3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . 307
6. Calculate minimum moments ‐ Cl 3.8.2.4 . . . . . . . . . . 308
7. Calculate unbraced design moments about each axis ‐ Cl 3.8.3.2 . . . . . . 308
8. Calculate equivalent uni‐axial design moments ‐ Cl 3.8.4.5 . . . . . . . 308
9. Member Design ‐ Cl 3.8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Chapter 20 Wall Design and Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Conservatism in the design method . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Wall Design and Detailing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Design With End Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Design Without End Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Should I use End Zones? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Plain Wall Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Option to use Single Layer of Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . 318
Design with Mesh Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
The "Revert to Loose Bar" Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
How the "Revert to Loose Bar" Option Works. . . . . . . . . . . 320
Limitation of "Revert to Loose Bar" Option . . . . . . . . . . . 320
Column Steel Details View. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Mesh and Minimum Reinforcement Requirements . . . . . . . . . 321
Points to Consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
Which Mesh Type is Better? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Overview of Possible Reinforcement Arrangements . . . . . . . . . 323
Design using Type A Mesh (not considering plain wall design option) . . . . . . 325
Design using Type A Mesh (considering plain wall design option) . . . . . . . 325
Design using Type B Mesh (considering plain wall design option) . . . . . . . 326
Limitation Copy/Paste Bars will not work . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Chapter 21 Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
Foundation Design Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
Foundation Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
The Foundation Forces Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Combining Columns and Walls for Shared Foundation Design . . . . . . . 330
To combine multiple columns and walls . . . . . . . . . . . 331
To ungroup columns and walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Calculation of the Combined Footing Design Forces . . . . . . . . . . 331
Creating a Typical Pad/Pile Footing for Multiple Foundations . . . . . . . 332
To create a typical footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Pad Footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Defining a Pad Footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Pad Footing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
Combined Pad Footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
Pile Caps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Defining a Pile Cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Basic Design Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Larger Pile Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Pile Cap Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Combined Pile Caps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Strip Footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Defining a Strip Footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Strip Analysis Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Adjusting the Subgrade Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Enveloping all Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Strip Footing Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Beam Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
Creating Wide Strip Footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Combined Strip Footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Defining a Combined Strip Footing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Analysis and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Raft (or Mat) foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Piled Rafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
Defining a Piled Raft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
Piled Raft Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Chapter 22 Design of RC Beam‐Column Joints to HK Code of Practice 2004 . . . . . 359

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Visual Status Confirmation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
General principles/procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Information required & gathered . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Design procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
1. Determine the horizontal design shear force across the joint . . . . . . . 363
1.1 Braced column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
1.2 Unbraced column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
2. Check the horizontal joint shear stress . . . . . . . . . . . 367
3. Calculate area of horizontal shear reinforcement required . . . . . . . . 368
4. Calculate area of vertical shear reinforcement required . . . . . . . . 368
Limitations & Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Beams at an angle to the orthogonal direction . . . . . . . . . . 369
Beams inclined to the horizontal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
More than 1 beam framing into the column on the same side (in the same direction) . . . 369
Circular and irregular columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Beam‐wall joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Beams at different levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
Chapter 23 Solution Options for Inclined/Lowered Members . . . . . . . . 371

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
Overview of Solution Options and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . 372
Inclined Beam and Slab Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
Building Analysis Worked Example . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
Diaphragm Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
Simplified Load Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
Load Comparison Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Switching to FE Beam Load Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . 377
Design and Detailing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Inclined Beam Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Inclined Beam Detail Drawings and Quantities. . . . . . . . . . 379
Inclined Column Design . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 380
.
Inclined Column Detail Drawings and Quantities . . . . . . . . . 380
Tapered Wall Design . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 380
Tapered Wall Detail Drawings and Quantities . . . . . . . . . . 381
Design and Detailing of the Inclined Slabs .. . . . . . . . . . 381
Tapered Wall Modelling . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 381
General Limitations ‐ Inclined/Lowered Members . . . . . . . . . 384
Load decomposition for lowered slabs . .. . . . . . . . . 384
FE Analysis Worked Example . . . .. . . . . . . . . 389
Introduction . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 389
Example Model . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 389
FE Chasedown Analysis . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 389
FE Model Generation . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 389
Load Comparison Check . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 391
Member Design based on FE Analysis. . .. . . . . . . . . 392
Limitations ‐ FE Analysis of Inclined/Lowered Members . . . . . . . . 393
Limitations ‐ Finite Element Analysis and Building Sway . . . . . . . . 393
Comparative Study using third party analysis software . . . . . . . . 394
Typical Test Model Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
Chapter 24 Overview of Solution Options for Transfer Levels . . . . . . . . 398

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Understanding the Problem and the Limitations . . . . . . . . . 398
Where Beams support Columns and Walls . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Where Slabs support Columns and Walls . . . . . . . . . . . 399
Key Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
Chapter 25 Transfer Beams – General Method . . . . . . . . . . . 400

Modelling and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
Analysis Model Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
Model Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
Stiffnesses Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
Settings Tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
Load Comparison Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404
Design and Detailing of the Transfer Beams . . . . . . . . . . 405
Discussion of Frame Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
Gravity Loads (Mid‐Pier Wall Modelling) . . . . . . . . . . . 406
Building Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
Front Transfer Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
Rear Transfer Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
Frame Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
Gravity Loads (FE Meshed Wall Modelling) . . . . . . . . . . . 412
Building Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Front Transfer Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
Rear Transfer Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
Frame Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
Limitations – Transfer Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Supporting Beam to carry all Wall Load . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
No supporting Beam – Wall to act as a Deep Beam . . . . . . . . . . 419
Beam and Wall to Work Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
Limitations – Walls Supported by more than 1 Beam . . . . . . . . . 424
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
Results based on Mid‐Pier Wall Idealisation . . . . . . . . . . . 426
Results based on Meshed Wall Idealisation . . . . . . . . . . . 427
Alternative Modelling Option – Split the wall . . . . . . . . . . . 428
Mid‐Pier Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Meshed Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
Summary/Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
Option 1 – Do not split the wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
Option 2 – Split the wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
Chapter 26 Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest) . . . . . . . . 432

Modelling and Initial Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
The FE Analysis and Load Chase Down . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
Axial Load Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
Merging Column Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
Column Design . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 437
Merging Beam Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
Merging Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
Discussion of Merged Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
Front Transfer Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
Beam Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
FE Chase Down with Duplicate Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
Chapter 27 Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 2 . . . . . . . . . . 446

Modelling and Initial Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446
Discussion of Merged Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
Front Transfer Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
Beam Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
Effect of adjusting Slab Stiffness Factor . . . . . . . . . . . 453
Chapter 28 Solution Option for Transfer Slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

Modelling and Initial Analysis .. . . . . . . . . . . . 455
Column and Wall Positioning .. . . . . . . . . . . . 456
Slab Insertion . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 457
Building Analysis . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 457
Alternative Modelling Option .. . . . . . . . . . . . 460
Concluding Note on Modelling .. . . . . . . . . . . . 460
Chapter 29 Flat Slab Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Scope of Flat Slab Design in Orion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Braced Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Un‐Braced Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Example of a more Irregular Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
Slab Analysis, Design and Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
Meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
Bottom Steel Reinforcement Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
Top Steel Reinforcement Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
Additional Notes on Bottom Steel Provision . . . . . . . . . . . 477
Column Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
Chapter 30 Column Punching Shear Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . 482

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
BS8110 Design Code Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
The Design Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
Check Maximum Shear Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
Check Shear on Series of Perimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
EC2 Design Code Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
The Design Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
Check Maximum Shear Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
Check Shear Capacity at the Basic Control Perimeter . . . . . . . . . 483
Calculate Shear Reinforcement Required and Length of Outer Control Perimeter . . . . 484
Calculation of Magnification Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
Internal column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
Edge column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
Corner column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
Calculation of W1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
Simple Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487
Checking a Typical Internal Column . . . . . . . . . . . . 488
Performing the Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488
Checking Maximum Shear Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
Check Shear on a Series of Perimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
Providing Shear Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
Checking a Typical Edge Column . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
Checking a Typical Corner Column . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
Column Drop Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
Dealing with Openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
Openings which have been modelled . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
Calculation of the Effective Shear Force . . . . . . . . . . . 503
Allowing for Openings which have not been modelled . . . . . . . . . 503
Final Batch Check and Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
General Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Dimension ‘x’ used at the face of the loaded area . . . . . . . . . . 509
Slab Merging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
Specification of Effective Slab Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . 514
Providing the Shear Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
Punching Perimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
Overlapping Perimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
Discontinuous Columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
Limitations Applicable to Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
Validity of Assumed Wall Perimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
Applicability of the Code Punching Checks to Walls . . . . . . . . . 516
What the Codes Say . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
2013 Version 18
Contents
:
Punching Perimeter for a wall subject to axial load only . . . . . . . . . 516
Punching Perimeter for a wall subject to axial load and bending . . . . . . . . 517
Developing a manual check for punching at the end of the wall ‐ some considerations . . . 517
Punching shear results from concentrated load acting on a relatively small area . . . . . 518
How much of the slab load would be appropriate to consider in such an end segment? . . . . 518
Worked Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
Concluding Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
Chapter 31 Slab Deflection Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
Overview of Concrete Slab Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
Instantaneous Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
Creep Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
Shrinkage Deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
Creep/Cracking Allowance Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
Slab Depth and Deflection Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . 524
Standard Slab Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
Comparison of Span / Eff depth checks for grade C20/25 concrete. . . . . . . . 524
Rigorous Deflection Calculations for grade C20/25 concrete. . . . . . . . . 525
General Notes on the Calculation Method . . . . . . . . . . . 525
Storage Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
Office Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526
Comparison of Span / Eff depth checks for grade C35/45 concrete. . . . . . . . 527
Rigorous Deflection Calculations for grade C35/45 concrete. . . . . . . . . 527
General Notes on the Calculation Method . . . . . . . . . . . 527
Storage Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
Office Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
Deflection Estimates using Linear FE Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 529
FE Analysis Results for C20/25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
FE Analysis Results for C35/45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
Overall Summary of Minimum Slab Depths . . . . . . . . . . . 531
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
Chapter 32 Linking and Merging Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533
Creating a Foundation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534
Requirements for Models to be Linked for Foundation Design . . . . . . . . 534
Procedure for Linking Existing Models into a Foundation Project . . . . . . . . 534
Linked Project Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536
Chapter 33 Reports and Drawing Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538
Orion Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538
Report Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
Quantity Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
Drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 1 : Overview
Chapter 1 Overview
Introduction
The aim of this handbook is to provide added background information together with hints, tips, and examples all of
which should help you to make the most of Orion. This manual is not written at a Getting Started level, and it is
recommended that you have worked through basic training examples in order to become familiar with the system
and terminologies used, before addressing the more complex detail provided here.
Copies of the getting started and basic training manuals in pdf format are installed with Orion and can be accessed
by clicking on the links below.
• Orion Quick Start guide.pdf
• Orion Standard Training Manual.pdf
(If the links do not work please browse to find the file name indicated above in the HELP sub‐folder of the Orion
Program Folder).
It is particularly noted that the Standard Training Manual covers many topics in sufficient detail that no further
mention is required in this document.
Modelling Analysis and Design Flowchart
If you write down the main headings for what you expect a Concrete Building Modeller to do it will probably look
pretty simple:
1. Provide a way to input/describe the model.
2. Analyse it.
3. Design it.
4. Produce Calculations.
5. Produce Drawings.
If you have worked through the training course notes you will know that Orion lets you do all this. The following
flow chart illustrates this basic sequence, but it also indicates options. The existence of such options can
sometimes lead to confusion – which option should you choose? In this chapter we will try to deal with each
heading in a little more detail, indicate when you might use the optional routes, and provide cross reference to
other chapters with more detailed information and/or worked examples.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Orion modelling, analysis and design flowchart
1. Slab design based on tabulated code coefficients

Build the model
2.
Derive beam loads using the ‘Yield
Line’ (tributary area) approach 2a - optional
Derive beam loads based on a special
FE model. Choose whether to use
these loads selectively or on all
3. beams
Run the general building analysis to
generate column, wall and beam
design forces 3a - optional
Use sequential FE floor analyses to
chase gravity loads down through the
structure. Selectively merge/override
column wall and beam design forces
with those of the general building
analysis
3b - optional
Use same FE models to generate and
merge alternative slab design forces
4.1 4.2 4.3

Beam design and Column/Wall design Slab design and
detailing and detailing detailing
Build the Model
As noted earlier, the primary source of help in this aspect of Orion usage is the Training Manual. Ordinary regular
models can be constructed with speed and ease.
Many chapters in this manual provide modelling information, hints and tips for more unusual circumstances.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Derive Beam Loads
This might incorrectly be regarded as part of the building analysis, it is not, slab loads are decomposed onto the
supporting beams prior to building analysis. Examining the flowchart indicates that you have options here and it is
important to understand what these are and when you might use them. The default load decomposition method is
based on tributary areas, and is commonly known as the Yield Line Method. This method has limitations in
circumstances such as:
1. When the slab boundaries are highly irregular
2. When there are significant holes defined in the slab
3. When there are eccentric concentrated point, patch, or line loads
The alternative FE Method will deal with these more extreme conditions. A more detailed discussion and example
is provided in the chapter Beam Loads and Load Decomposition Methods.
General Building Analysis
A full 3D analysis model is derived from the physical information that you describe when constructing the model.
This may sound simple but in fact there are numerous potential subtleties to consider here, items such as:
1. Does a full 3D analysis actually give the answers you expect?
2. How are diaphragms modelled?
3. How is pattern loading catered for?
4. How are walls modelled?
5. etc.
These and other related topics are considered in the chapters:
• General Building Analysis ,
• Wall Modelling Considerations and
• Overview of Differential Axial Deformation Effects in 3D Analysis of Buildings
It is worth noting here that the 3D analysis model of a complete building is primarily a frame element model with
an option to use FE meshing of shear/core walls. It does not include FE meshed floor elements. Since flat slab (or
flat plate) structures do not include beams the basic 3D building analysis will not deal with these structures. The
chapter Flat Slab Models describes the alternative solution provided for these circumstances.
Design and Detailing
Much of the element design theory is covered in the following chapters:
• Beam Design to BS8110 ,
• Column Design to BS8110 and
• Wall Design and Detailing .
As beam and slab systems become more irregular, you may wish to turn to the optional FE analysis for the slab
design, the chapter Analysis and Design using FE provides additional information in this regard.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 2 : Modelling Techniques
Chapter 2 Modelling Techniques
Introduction
The Standard Training Manual covers many of the modelling techniques required for a typical structure in sufficient
detail that no further mention is required here. It can be accessed by clicking on the following link:
Note If the link does not work please browse to find the file name indicated above in the HELP
sub‐folder of the Orion Program Folder.
More advanced modelling techniques may also on occasion be required. The following cases are discussed in this
chapter:
1. Modelling Inclined and Lowered Members– By default columns and walls are vertical, beams and slabs are
horizontal, however it is possible to specify otherwise to cater for inclined and lowered members.
2. Modelling Curved Axes and Beams ‐ It is possible to generate axes on a curve to facilitate the definition of
curved slab edges and beams.
3. Linking Angled Beams ‐ If beams connect at an angle the program will attempt to automatically determine if
they should be linked on the detail sheet. However if the default arrangement is unsatisfactory you can choose
to revise it.
4. Columns and Walls Spanning More Than One Storey – Each column and wall only spans one storey in the
building unless explicitly specified otherwise. If the column/wall spans more than one storey, the number of
storeys should be defined using Len (Storey) field in the member properties dialog. This ensures the correct
length is used in the slenderness calculations when the column/wall is designed.
5. User Defined Supports – These can be employed to model supports which occur above the common foundation
level. They can also be used to model (linear elastic) ground springs.
Note Currently user defined supports are only active in the Building Analysis model and not in the FE
Analysis model.
6. Stepped Foundation Levels – Often buildings will be built on sloping sites, or they may have to accommodate
split basement levels. These situations are catered for within Orion using either of two methods depending on
the complexity of the modelling situation.
7. Beams with Varying Depth – Generally, beams will have constant section properties (width and depth) from the
beginning of the member to the end, however there may be occasions when you need to change the beam
depth part way along the member.
8. Pinned Member Ends – Columns and beams are by default fixed ended members, however to alter the way
forces are distributed the user can introduce pins at specific locations within the model.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Modelling Inclined and Lowered Members
Although beams and slabs are by default analysed with their centre‐lines assumed to be at a common elevation, it
is possible to raise or lower them out of the floor plane so that this is not the case. Similarly, although by default
each column and wall is created vertically and each beam and slab is created horizontally, they can also be defined
at other inclinations.
This section describes how to define inclined and lowered members ‐ it is important that you familiarise yourself
with the associated limitations before you use them. For further details see the chapter Solution Options for
Inclined/Lowered Members
Note The features described in this section are for the purpose of defining occasional sloping/
lowered elements within a model which still contains distinct horizontal floor planes. These
features are NOT intended to facilitate the modelling of structures with complex geometries in
which the floor planes are not readily apparent.
Note In some cases, using engineering judgement to make an allowance to the loading (to cater for
the expected effects of the sloped/lowered elements) may actually be simpler than introducing
the sloped/lowered elements themselves.
Sloping and Lowered Slabs
To create a sloping slab panel you must first define a Plane to align it to. (see Working With Planes on page 25).
Once the plane has been defined the slab can simply be moved into the new plane.
A slab panel may be dropped using the Rel Level box in the Slab Properties dialog. Entering a negative value in the
Rel Level box will drop the current slab beneath the general slab level by the amount specified.
Note that the slab design moments obtained (using either the moment coefficient strip method or Finite Elements
strip method) would not be any different for a dropped slab panel in comparison to an identical panel which had
not been dropped. This is because the level difference would not be recognized in the analysis.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Sloping and Lowered Beams
Beams can be set above or below the storey level, or they can be inclined by using the del z boxes for each end of
the beam in the Beam Properties dialog. Entering a negative value in the del z box will drop the beam end beneath
the general slab level by the amount specified.
If multiple members are to be edited it can be more efficient to first define a Plane to align them to (see Working
With Planes on page 25).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Sloping and Lowered Columns
Column levels can be set above or below the storey level using the del z boxes in the Column Properties dialog (3D
tab). Entering a negative value in the del z box will drop the column end beneath the general slab level by the
amount specified.
Columns can be inclined by specifying, (from the Column Properties, (General tab), different axis intersections for
each end of the column.
Columns can be associated with Planes (see Working With Planes on page 25) in order to raise or lower the column
end relative to the storey level. Planes are not used to create inclined columns.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Sloping and Lowered Walls
Wall levels can be set above or below the storey level for each end of the wall by using the del z box in the Shear
Wall Properties (3D tab). Entering a negative value in the del z box will drop the wall end beneath the general slab
level by the amount specified.
Walls can be inclined by specifying, (from the Properties ‐ General tab) different axis intersections for the top and
bottom of the Wall as shown below.
Walls can be associated with Planes in order to raise or lower the wall ends relative to the storey level. Planes are
not used to create inclined walls.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Working With Planes
Planes can be defined which may be offset from the storey level and which may also be inclined. They are inserted
in a similar way to slabs. Initially, as shown below, they are placed horizontally at the storey level ‐ the level and
inclination being controlled by three node points at the corners of the plane.
If the default node points identified are not suitable, one, or all can be reselected using the appropriate Pick Point
icon on the Plane Properties dialog. Once the required node points are displayed, the Z elevation of each can be
updated in order to change the level, or inclination of the plane.
Having defined the plane and the members which are to be part of the plane, the next step is to Move Members to
the Plane Definition. This command can be accessed from the right click menu, (or from the Planes branch of the
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Structure Tree).
As shown below, all members contained within, or at the edge of the plane are adjusted to the plane.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Modelling Curved Axes and Beams
It is possible to define beams and slabs that are curved in the floor plane. Curved beams by definition have to be
placed on a curved axis. This axis can either be created via a 'Curved Axis Generator' or it can be generated
automatically if the beam is formed using the 'Curved Beam Generator'.
If you look closely at a curved beam you will see that it is actually formed from a series of straight segments. You
can specify how many segments to use when defining the beam.
Curved Beam formed from 6 segments
Curved Beam formed from 12 segments
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Curved Axes
Curved axes are required for the definition of curved beams and curved slab edges. They are formed from a number
of linked straight axis segments which approximate to the curve required. Provided the curve has a constant radius
it should be created using the 'Curved Axis Generator'. If you require a curve which doesn't have a constant radius
you are restricted to placing and then linking each axis segment manually.
The Curved Axis Generator
Straight axes are created by simply clicking and dragging between two points. To create a curved axis, (or to
generate multiple, or offset axes) you follow the same procedure, apart from you must press and hold down the
Shift key while dragging between the points. When you let go of the mouse a dialog appears as shown below
allowing you to define the degree of curvature and apply offsets, or repeat spacings.
Offset Options
These options can be applied to both straight and curved axes. Instead of the axis passing through the points
clicked, it is drawn offset by the amount specified.
Curved axis insertion methods
Three methods exist for specifying the curve: Chord Offset; Centre Offset and Radius. The number of straight
segments forming the curve can also be controlled as can the decision to draw the tangent segments external or
internal to the curve. As you type in curve properties a preview is displayed on screen.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Preview with Axis Segments Drawn External
Preview with Axis Segments Drawn Internal
Insertion/Generation Options
These options can be applied to both straight and curved axes. Multiple axes can be created at equal or varying
spacings as required.
Curved Beams
Curved beams are composed of a number of linked straight beam segments approximating to the curve required.
They are defined using the 'Curved Beam Generator'.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The Curved Beam Generator
A straight beam is created by simply clicking and dragging between two points. A curved beam can be created in
the same way, apart from you must press and hold down the Shift key while dragging between the points. When
you let go of the mouse a dialog appears as shown below allowing you to define the degree of curvature.
Offset Options
These options can be applied to both straight and curved beams. Instead of the beam passing through the points
clicked, it is drawn offset by the amount specified.
Curved beam insertion methods
Four methods exist for specifying the curve: Chord Offset; Centre Offset; Radius and 'Use Existing Curved Axis'. The
first three methods are the same as those used for defining curved axes, the forth method only becomes active if
both the start and end point clicked are linked by an existing curved axis
Having specified the beam, a preview of how it will look is displayed on the plan view. Once you are happy that it is
positioned correctly, click OK to generate it.
Insertion/Generation Options
These options can be applied to both straight and curved beams. Multiple beams can be created at equal or varying
spacings as required.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
How many segments to use?
There is no definitive answer to this question for all cases ‐ it will depend on the length of the beam and the
amount of curvature introduced. The default of six segments will often prove sufficient, (we certainly wouldn't
suggest using any less than six), but if you are in doubt you can check for yourself by examining the effect on the
analysis result of introducing more segments.
Note By Increasing this number of segments a smoother curve is formed, however it also increases
the size of the analysis model (potentially taking longer to solve). This more refined model may
not significantly improve the accuracy of the result.
Example Case Study:
The model shown below is analysed with the curved beam initially modelled with 6, then 12 and finally 24
segments. The resulting moments and deflections are then compared.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Analysis Results for different numbers of Segments
Six Segments
Twelve Segments
Twenty Four Segments
Deflection Hogging Sagging

Model
(mm) Moment (kN) Moment (kN)
6 Segments 68 47.3 ‐14.6
12 Segments 45 47.0 ‐13.6
24 Segments 40 46.9 ‐13.4
Although from the above it can be seen that the deflections haven't converged on a stable answer, the hogging and
sagging moments remain fairly constant. If the six segment model were adopted the beam would be designed for
slightly higher moments than if a more refined model were adopted.
Beam End Conditions
Hinges can be applied at either end of a curved beam by using the 'Update Beam End Conditions' command
accessed from the right click menu.
Marking Cantilever Curved Beams
Free ends can be specified at either end of a curved beam by using the 'Mark Free End of Cantilever Beam'
command accessed from the right click menu.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Editing the Position of a Curved Beam
Currently this is not possible. If the beam is not in the correct location you will have to first delete and then recreate
it.
Editing Curved Beam Section Properties
Currently this is not possible. If the sectional properties of the beam are not correct you will have to first delete and
then recreate it.
Editing Curved Beam Member Loads
Beam Member Loads can be applied by using the 'Edit Member Loads' command accessed from the right click
menu. The dialog that is displayed only shows the loads applied on one beam segment at a time. The forward and
backward arrows can be used to move from one segment to the next.
Note If you change data for one segment then this change is saved when you move to another
segment. If you press cancel you are only cancelling edits made to the current segment, edits
applied to previous segments are not cancelled.
Linking Angled Beams
When beam detail sheets are created, any beams which connect in a straight line are linked automatically. In the
special case of beams meeting at angled intersections, it may not be immediately clear if they should be linked or
not, particularly if multiple beams meet at the same point.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The program will attempt to automatically determine the linking, however if the default arrangement is
unsatisfactory you can choose to revise it. This is achieved by manually linking those axes on which you require the
beams to appear as linked.
Consider the example shown below, none of the highlighted beams are co‐linear but it would make sense to link
some of them on the detail sheet.
The the program chooses to automatically link the beams as follows:
Beams 1B3 and 1B4 are linked Beams 1B1 and 1B5 are linked Beam 1B2 is not linked
Note The analysis is completely unaffected by the way the beams are linked together ‐ only the
beam details are affected.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The resulting detail drawing is shown below:
Manually Linking the Intersecting Axes
It would make more sense to link beams 1B1 and 1B2 on the detail sheet and have 1B5 detailed as a single span.
This can be achieved by linking the intersecting axes A1 and A2 in the plan view.
The axes are linked as follows:
• Select the first axis to be linked (A1)
• From the Right Click menu choose Link Intersecting Axes
• Pick the axis to be linked to this axis (A2)
• The two axes are immediately linked together
• If you require, you can then continue to pick further intersecting axes to link to the end of this one
Once the axes have been linked only the first axis label is displayed. The linked axes can now be selected/unselected
as a single entity.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
If at any time you require to return the linked axes to their original unlinked state, this can be achieved by choosing
Separate Linked Axes from the Right Click menu.
After either linking or unlinking, although the analysis results are unaffected, a re‐analysis is still required. This is
because the data has to be stored in a different way in preparation for beam design and detailings. After re‐analysis
the affected beams should be re‐designed.
Having linked axis A1 to A2 the beams are now linked as follows:
Beams 1B3 and 1B4 are linked Beams 1B1 and 1B2 are linked Beam 1B5 is not linked
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The revised detail drawing is shown below:
Note It is not always possible to link intersecting axes ‐ for example a Dir 1 axis can not be linked
with a Dir 2 axis and vice‐versa. In such cases it may be necessary to detail the beams
individually.
Columns and Walls Spanning More Than One Storey
Each column and wall only spans one storey in the building unless explicitly specified otherwise. If the column/wall
spans more than one storey, the number of storeys should be defined using Len (Storey) field in the member
properties dialog. This ensures the correct length is used in the slenderness calculations when the column/wall is
designed.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Example Case Study
In this example, some columns in the 5th storey span to the 3rd storey top level as shown below. The clear height of
these columns is twice that of other columns at the 5th and 4th storeys and they will not be affected or restrained by
any rigid diaphragm action that may exist at the 4th storey.
To define a column that spans two storeys
1. From the storey list go to the topmost storey that the column spans to, (in this example it is St05).
2. In the Graphic Editor, select the column spanning more than 1 storey.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
3. Enter the number of storeys that the column spans in the Len (Storey) box. In this example enter 2 as shown
below.
4. Press the Update button to apply the modification to the selected column.
5. Select the floor below, and delete the column that is already covered by the column in the upper storey. In this
example select the 4 th storey and delete the corner column as shown below. Note that, if the column spans
P P
more than two storeys, this step must be repeated for all the lower floors covered by that column.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
User Defined Supports
These can be applied to the lower end of any column or wall at any level to introduce an external support or spring.
The translational (in global X, Y and Z) and rotational (about global X, Y and Z) degrees of freedom can be set to
fixed, or free, or a spring stiffness can be assigned.
Unless you specify and apply user defined supports, every column and wall in your model adopts a default support.
Note Currently user defined supports are only active in the Building Analysis model and not in the FE
Analysis model.
What is a default support?
The support provided by default is dependant upon the storey level at which the column or wall stops.
For columns and walls that stop at ST00 (i.e. the foundation) — Default = Fully Fixed Support
For columns and walls that stop at ST01 and above — Default = No External Support
In the simple model shown below, the grey shaded columns and walls are stopping at ST00, hence they each have
fully fixed supports.
Whereas, the columns and walls that stop at ST01, (again shaded in grey below) have by default no external
support. The loads within these columns will therefore be transferred directly into the members in the lower
storey.
When might a default support be inappropriate?
In typical models you will often find that default supports are all that is needed. However, certain situations might
require you to specify and apply user defined supports.
Cases where user defined supports could be necessary include:
• Buildings with sprung, or pinned1 supports
• Buildings with stepped foundations
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Specifying a User Defined Support
If a fixed support is inappropriate, a pinned or spring support can be defined as follows:
1. Choose Support Type Definitions from the Members menu.
2. Click the Add New button and enter a label to describe the new support type.
3. To define a translational release in a particular direction uncheck the x, y or z support box as appropriate.
4. To define a rotational release in about a particular axis uncheck the X‐Rotation, Y‐Rotation or Z‐Rotation
support box as appropriate.
5. To define a translational spring in a particular direction enter the spring stiffness in the appropriate x, y or z box,
(having first unchecked the corresponding support box).
6. To define a rotational spring in a particular direction enter the spring stiffness in the appropriate X‐Rotation,
Y‐Rotation or Z‐Rotation box, (having first unchecked the corresponding support box).
7. Click OK to save the new support definition.
Footnotes
1. releasing the end of the member is a simpler technique for achieving a pinned connection to the support.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Applying a User Defined Support
Having defined a new support type as above, it can then be assigned to a specific column or wall using the member
properties dialog:
1. Select and load the properties for the column or wall.
2. Click on the 3D tab and choose the appropriate Support Type from the list.
3. Click on Update to save the change.
User Defined Supports ‐ Trouble shooting
In models where you have applied user defined supports we would recommend that you carefully review the
analysis results to ensure they are working as you intended. Careless application of supports could have
unexpected effects.
Mechanisms
A mechanism may be introduced if, for example, you have applied a pinned support to a pin ended member.
Diaphragm restraint
Typically, a rigid diaphragm exists within the floor slab. Hence, if a slab connects to the base of a column which has
a user defined support applied, the support will be directly restraining the rigid diaphragm itself. This could
inadvertently prevent lateral displacements from developing at that level even if this was not the original intention.
Load Paths
User defined supports are assumed to transfer any reaction directly to the foundation. You should not apply a user
defined support at an upper storey level unless there is means for this transfer to occur.
A stepped foundation is an example of where a user defined support would be appropriate, whereas, a transfer
column situation (i.e. where the column is supported by another member) is an example of where it is not.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Stepped Foundation Levels
The model shown below illustrates a stepped foundation level. In such models care is required to ensure that the
columns and walls are correctly supported. A fixed support is only automatically placed underneath each column
and wall that is physically connected to the common foundation level (indicated by the grey plane ).
Depending on the model complexity, and the type of analysis carried out, one of two modelling methods may be
appropriate for achieving this, we shall referto these as:
• Default Supports Method
• User Defined Supports Method
Default Supports Method
All columns and walls that are supported on a foundation (irrespective of the foundation level) are initially created
so that their lower end connects to the general foundation level (St00). The foundation level is then adjusted by
raising or dropping the lower end of the columns and walls relative to the St00 level as required.
Because the columns and walls connect to St00 they are all automatically provided with a default support.
Note This approach can be used for models solved either by Building Analysis or FE Chasedown
Analysis.
Single Storey Example of the Default Supports Method
In the model below the step occurs below the lowest floor level (St01). All the columns and walls are defined with
Len (Storey) = 1. The only requirement is to vary the foundation level to form the step. This is achieved by raising, or
dropping, the base level of the appropriate columns and walls .
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Two Storey Example of the Default Supports Method
In the model below the step occurs above the lowest floor level (St01).
The columns to the right of the model must initally be defined with Len (Storey) = 2 so as to enable them to connect
to the foundation. (If this was not done they would be treated as unsupported.) Their base levels are then raised to
the appropriate level by applying a dZ‐Bot figure as described below.
To change the base level of selected columns and walls
1. In the plan view select the columns and walls to be changed.
2. Display the columns member table and change the dZ‐Bot figure for all the selected columns. A negative figure
will lower the base level below the common foundation level and a positive figure will raise it.
3. Repeat the above process for the walls changing both dZ‐Bot, I and dZ‐Bot,
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
User Defined Supports Method
In this method it is not necessary for all the columns and walls to connect to the general foundation level (St00).
User defined supports are applied at the floor level at which the foundation exists. The foundation level is then
adjusted by raising or dropping the lower end of the columns and walls relative to the current storey.
Note This approach can only be used for models solved by Building Analysis. FE Chasedown Analysis
does not currently recognise user defined supports.
Example of the User Defined Supports Method
In the example below, the columns to the right, which are defined spanning from ST02 down to ST01 are to be
supported on a raised foundation.
The exact level of the raised foundation is specified by applying a dZ‐Bot figure to the columns which is measured
from the current storey level (in the same way as described in the Default Supports Method).
Because these columns do not connect to St00, they are initially unsupported. Therefore user defined supports will
need to be manually defined and applied. For details of how to specify these supports refer to the section‐ User
Defined Supports
Note If the raised foundation level coincides exactly with an existing storey level, it may be necessary
to offset one from the other to avoid a user defined support being applied within a floor
diaphragm. This can result in an illegal constraint at the joint in question.
Note User defined supports can be either pinned, fixed, or spring bases as required.
Beams with Varying Depth
Generally, beams will have the constant section properties (width and depth) from the beginning of the member to
the end, however there may be occasions when you need to change the beam depth part way along the member.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
You can define a second beam along the axis in order to change the section properties. Naturally, you need to
define a Non‐frame dummy axis in order to create an axis intersection at the particular location that the beam
change section properties, to insert the second beam.
“Non-frame” axis to
create an intermediate
intersection
1st beam with
section 250x500
2nd beam with

section 250x750
1B25 1B25A
250x750 250x750
Changing the Depth of the Beam
Note that this procedure is known as Splitting Beams and while it is possible, it will have implications affecting the
resulting beam detail. You will need to review and possibly edit the automatically produced detail to ensure it is
acceptable.
Example Case Study
In this example, there is a first floor beam shown below which has a varying depth. The beam changes depth from
500mm to 750mm after 1500mm from its left insertion point.
This is modelled using the following steps:
1. Before creating the beam, insert a grid line to cross the beam at the point where its depth will change. You can
do this by offsetting the axis (say Axis 1) at the I end of the beam a distance 1500mm. The name of the axis can
be any dummy label (say 1x).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
2. Stretch the end‐points of the new axis 1x, so that it crosses only the grid line that the beam will be defined
(say A).
1x intersection
1500 mm
1 1x 2
3. Remove the check in the View Codes option of this dummy grid line, so that it is defined to be a ghost axis and
check the Not to Plot option so that this axis will not be visible in any printed output.
4. Instead of creating a single beam, insert two beams, 1B25 from axis 1 to axis 1x and 1B25A from axis 1x to axis
2.
1x intersection
st
1 beam with
section 250x500
2nd beam with

section 250x750
1B25 1B25A
250x750 250x750
1x
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Pinned Member Ends
Columns and beams are by default fixed ended members, however to alter the way forces are distributed the user
can introduce pins at specific locations within the model
To Pin a Single Column
A column can be pinned at one or both ends, using the appropriate End‐Condition button in the Column Properties
dialog.
The different conditions available are tabulated below:
Fix‐Fix (no hinges)
Pin‐Pin (both ends pinned)
Fix top‐Pin bottom (hinge at bottom end)
Pin top‐Fix bottom (hinge at top end)
To Pin Multiple Columns
Multiple columns can be pinned using the Update Column End Conditions option in the shortcut menu accessed
using the right mouse button after selecting one or more columns.
After choosing the desired end condition a button menu appears for filtering options.
End Conditions Application Filter Options
Using this button menu, you can either apply the selected end condition to selected columns, or all columns in the
current storey, or all columns in the building.
To Remove the Hinges from the Columns
In order to remove the pin conditions of selected columns or all columns in the current storey or all columns in the
building you can use the No Hinges (Fix‐Fix) option of the Update Column End Conditions menu.
To Pin a Single Beam
A beam can be pinned at one or both ends, using the appropriate End‐Condition button in the Beam Properties
dialog.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The different conditions available are shown below:
Fix‐Fix (no hinges)
Pin‐Pin (both ends pinned)
Pin‐Fix
Fix‐Pin
To Pin Multiple Beams
Multiple beams can be pinned using the Update Beam End Conditions option in the shortcut menu accessed using
the right mouse button after selecting one or more beams.
After choosing the desired end condition a button menu appears for filtering options.
End Conditions Application Filter Options
Using this button menu, you can either apply the selected end condition to selected beams, or all beams in the
current storey, or all beams in the building.
To Remove the Hinges from the Beams
In order to remove the pin conditions of selected beams or all beams in the current storey or all beams in the
building you can use the No Hinges (Fix‐Fix) option in the Update Beam End Conditions menu.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 3 : Beam Loads and Load Decomposition Methods
Chapter 3 Beam Loads and Load Decomposition Methods
General
Orion calculates the beam loads automatically using the slab area loads, beam wall load information and unit
weight of the members. Calculated loads can be viewed and modified (if necessary) using the Edit Member Loads
function on the right mouse click menu. The following distributed loads are calculated automatically:
• Beam self weight as a uniformly distributed load (using the unit weight of concrete defined in the Project
Parameters menu and the geometry of the beam),
• Dead and imposed (live) loads transferred from the adjacent slabs (as distributed function loads calculated
based on the self weight and area loads of the slabs),
• User defined additional dead and imposed (live) loads (any additional loads that cannot be determined
automatically can be defined by the user),
• User defined additional beam wall (dead) loads
Dead and imposed point loads transferred by supported secondary beams do not show up when using Edit Member
Loads and neither do point loads from supported columns and walls. This is because these members are
themselves part of the 3D analysis model. The loads they transfer can only be seen in terms of steps in the shear
force diagram. For more information on supported columns and walls refer to the chapter Overview of Solution
Options for Transfer Levels.
Modifying Beam Loads
When you select a beam and use a right mouse click to access the shortcut menu, you can select the Edit Member
Loads option to view the beam vertical loads.
Beam Loads Dialog
The following buttons and fields are displayed on the Load Profile dialog.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Load Table
Each load in the Load Editor is represented as a row in the Load Table. A hand icon will appear in the right‐most
column to mark any manually defined user loads (none shown above). Typically, Uniformly Distributed Loads and
Partial Distributed Loads may exist in this table.
The selected load will be highlighted in the accompanying drawing to the right of the Load Table. You can only edit
or delete manually defined user loads.
Edit Button
You can edit an existing manually defined user load in the Load Editor by clicking on this button. Note that
automatic loads will be loaded as Read‐Only to this editor. You cannot make any modifications to automatic loads.
Delete Button
You can delete an existing manually defined user load in the Load Editor by clicking on this button. Note that
automatic loads cannot be deleted.
New Load Button
You can define new manually defined user loads with the Load Editor by clicking on this button. For example, if you
want to define a new point load, click this button to display the Load Editor, enter the Reference X, Dead Load and
Imposed Load fields. Define the Load Transfer Side and close the dialog by pressing the OK button.
Slab Load Calculation Method
This option allows you to swap between alternative methods for decomposing slab loads to establish beam loads.
A detailed discussion of this is provided in the section Switching between Yield Line and FE load Decomposition
later in this chapter.
OK Button
If you close the Beam Loads dialog by clicking the OK button after making any modifications, all the changes will be
saved.
Cancel Button
If you close the Beam Loads dialog by clicking the Cancel button after making any modifications, the changes made
on the beam will be discarded.
How to Define a New Point Load
You can do the following steps to define a new manual point load:
1. Press the New Load button to open the Load Editor.
2. Press the Point Load button at the top of the dialog to define a point load.
3. Press the From Above button in the Load Transfer Side group (default) at the bottom of the dialog.
4. Optionally, enter a label for the load.
5. Enter the Reference X. This is the distance of the point load from the reference point of the beam (which is the
I‐end).
6. Enter the load magnitudes into the Dead Load – G and Imposed Load – Q fields.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
7. Press the OK button to insert the point load. Alternatively you can abort the process using the Cancel button.
How to Define a New Uniformly Distributed Load
You can do the following steps to define a new manual uniformly distributed load (UDL):
2. Press the Uniformly Distributed Load button at the top of the dialog to define a uniformly distributed load.
5. Enter the Dead Load – G and Imposed Load – Q details.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
6. Press the OK button to insert the uniformly distributed load. Alternatively you can abort the process using the
Cancel button.
How to Define a New Partial Distributed Load
You can define a partial load either by using the Load Generator or by directly defining the load points using the
vertex table.
Using the Load Generator
2. Press the Partial Distributed Load button at the top of the dialog to define a partial distributed load.
5. Press the Load Generator button to open the Loading Options dialog.
6. Select a load shape by pressing the appropriate button in the top portion of the dialog.
7. Enter the values for the parameters defining the geometry and magnitude of the load. Here, x is the start
distance to the load, and a, b, c are the widths of the load segments.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
8. Enter the P values for load cases Dead Load – G and Imposed Load – Q.
9. Press the OK button to insert the partial distributed load. Alternatively you can abort the process using the
Cancel button.
Note The vertex table is filled with the details of the partial load you have defined.
Using the vertex table
Alternatively you can modify or directly define a new partial load by using the vertex table. For example, to add a
partial 2.5 m width UDL with magnitude G=6 kN and Q=3.5 kN, starting from x=5 m you can use the following steps:
1. Select the 4 th vertex in the table.
P P
2. Press the Add Below button to append a new vertex to the end of the table.
3. Modify the x value to 5.0.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
4. Press the Add Below button again to append another vertex to the end of the table.
5. Modify the x value to 7.5, the G value to 6.0 and the Q value to 3.5.
6. Press the Add Below button again to append another vertex to the end of the table.
7. Modify the x value to 5.0, the G value to 6.0 and the Q value to 3.5.
8. Press the Add Below button again to append a closing vertex to the end of the table.
9. Modify the x value to 7.5, the G value to 0 and the Q value to 0.
10. Close the dialog by pressing the OK button to insert the partial distributed load.
How to Define a New Load on an Inclined Beam
The following points should be noted:
• Loads applied via the Load Editor are always applied vertically, even if the beam is inclined.
• For UDL and VDL loads the magnitude of the load, P (in kN/m) should be entered as a sloped load value.
• The Load Editor requires all loads (including point loads) to be input using a horizontal projected distance rather
than a distance measured on the slope.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
For example, a 5m long beam at a slope of 30 degrees would have a horizontal projected length of 4m. A point load
at mid span would therefore be defined with a Reference X, of 2m as shown below.
The load is analysed correctly at the mid point of the sloped length ‐ this can be confirmed by displaying the loading
diagram in the beam analysis results.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Switching between Yield Line and FE load Decomposition
What is Load Decomposition?
Slabs are not modelled as part of the general building analysis. To do this would require a fully meshed up FE model
at every floor level in a multi‐storey 3D model. For realistic structures, such models remain beyond the reasonable
capacity of current computer hardware/processors.
Therefore, when you define slabs and loads on slabs, Orion has to work out what loading should be applied to the
supporting beams. By default this is done in a traditional method based on tributary areas.
The boundaries of the tributary areas loading each beam can be viewed graphically as shown above. These look
similar to potential Yield Lines, hence the name given to this default method.
In this, as in many other areas, Orion effectively applies the sort of engineering methodology that has been used in
hand calculations for many years.
Why switch to an FE method?
This method has limitations in circumstances such as:
1. When the slab boundaries are highly irregular and particularly where some edges of a complex boundary are
unsupported.
2. When there are significant holes defined in the slab.
3. When there are eccentric concentrated point, patch, or line loads.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In such circumstances beam loads are more accurately calculated by using a Finite Elements Model.
Consider the simple 6 m by 4 m slab shown above. Eccentric concentrated point loads are applied and a large void
also has been defined.
The Traditional (Yield Line) method of load transfer would ignore the hole, and it would average out the point load
by calculating an equivalent UDL to apply over the whole area of the slab. Although the load is not lost, its effect is
independent of its proximity to any of the surrounding beams. This is all reasonably apparent when you examine
the beam loads.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The loading on beam 1B1 is a simple trapezoidal profile where the peak UDL is adjusted to account for the point
loads. Based on this method, beam 1B2 sees an identical loading profile. When you run a building analysis, a
completely symmetrical set of column loads is determined as shown below.
Example of FE Method for Slab Load Decomposition
By using the optional Finite Elements Model, the point loads will be much more accurately distributed. The slab
load will also be more accurately distributed, including the deductions and effects associated with the void.
The procedure for generating optional beam loads based on an FE model is as follows:
1. Select the Load Decomposition by FE command from the Run menu as shown below.
2. Click on the button Determine Loads Transferred from Slabs, this will open up an FE modelling window.
It is important to note the advice on mesh density that is given in the above dialog.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
3. A plate size is suggested by default. Click the Generate Model button and the slab is meshed automatically.
In this case the suggested plate size results in the above mesh being generated, and although not well meshed
around the opening this is probably sufficient in this simple example for the intended purpose.
4. Close this FE window and then also the Finite Element Analysis Form. This will result in the following dialog
being displayed.
5. The FE results can be applied to selected beams, all beams in the current storey, or to the whole model. Choose
Apply to All Beams in the Model.
You are then returned to the Graphic Editor.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Having completed the above process, FE information exists and has been applied to all beams in the model. You
can review this on a beam‐by‐beam basis. Select any beam and open the beam loads dialog, it will have swapped
to the Finite Elements Slab Load Decomposition Method. The new loading for beam 1B1 is shown below.
As expected the load intensity is peaking towards the ends where the point loads are applied.
To utilise these new loadings it is necessary to reperform the building analysis. On completion we can see a very
different distribution of column loads.
The total IL using the Yield Line method was approximately 267.6 kN. Using the FE method it has dropped to 265.5
kN, this is slightly lower because no load is applied to the hole.
Note If you change any slab loads or beam layouts, you must remember to reperform the Load
Decomposition by FE command before reperforming the building analysis.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Note Axial load comparisons are performed at the end of each analysis. This is a comparison of
applied loads vs. analysis reactions. Since you can choose decomposition methods on a
beam‐by‐beam basis you can cause this comparison to show discrepancies. In the example
above, if you choose finite element decomposition for beam 1B1 only, the comparison will be
displayed as shown below.
The first applied loads table shows the totals for the loads applied to each slab, beam, etc. The second applied
loads table shows the loading totals after decomposition. Since the decomposition methods have been mixed so
that a worst case is used for every beam, the total loading after decomposition is higher. You can then see that this
higher loading is maintained in the building analysis.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Why retain the traditional (yield line) method?
Having reviewed the example above this is a question you might ask. The main point to bear in mind is that the
example is unusual/extreme. Concentrated loads and dominant openings are not the norm.
The main disadvantage of the FE method is speed. When there are a large number of slabs, there are a
correspondingly large number of plates required and the analytical models (even though it is one floor at a time)
get big and hence slow.
Comparisons of uniformly loaded slabs have shown excellent correlation between the traditional (yield line) and FE
methods, so you may find it easier to continue using the traditional method for much of your work.
If you think about the differences the FE method makes, you will be able to decide when it might be more
appropriate ‐ clearly the FE method is better if you have to deal with significant holes and/or isolated loading.
Ultimately, neither method is going to suit everybody all of the time. For this reason you can pick and choose on a
beam by beam basis if you wish, or you can design all the beams using one method and then check them using the
other. When checking you can use the option to select new steel when previous bars are insufficient so that you
end up with all beams designed for the worst case from either load decomposition method.
Note In the FE method beams are replaced by a line of fully fixed supports. As a consequence, in
ordinary regular slabs both the yield line and FE method will share loads equally to internal
and edge beams. In other words continuity is not being considered. This is a simplification that
has long been accepted in hand calculations.
A more extreme example of the above would be a cantilever slab. The beam adjacent to the
cantilever takes the entire cantilever slab load, plus half of the internal slab load, for long
cantilevers that can be a significant under estimate.
The only way to account for continuity in such a case would be to run an FE chasedown analysis
and then merge the resulting beam loads. This method deals with the continuity, a higher load
is put on the beam adjacent to the cantilever and correspondingly less load is put on the next
internal beam ‐ some engineers may prefer this. For details of how to perform an FE
chasedown analysis refer to the chapter "Overview of Analysis and Design Using FE".
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 4 : Analysis Methods
Chapter 4 Analysis Methods
Introduction
Having constructed and loaded your model, an analysis will be required before member design1 can commence.
The analysis method(s) used will depend on a number of factors; for certain structures (eg flat slabs) two or more
analyses may be required.
A brief summary of the analysis methods available within Orion is given below, these are then discussed in more
detail in the next four chapters:
General Building Analysis
A full 3D analysis is performed for all load cases and combinations, (vertical and lateral). The analysis model consists
primarily of frame elements with an option to use FE meshing of shear/core walls. It does not include FE meshed
floor elements.
General Building Analysis can be used to determine:
• Frame deflections/sway sensitivity
• Beam design forces (from both vertical and lateral combinations)
• Column and wall design forces (from both vertical and lateral combinations)
• Foundation forces (from both vertical and lateral combinations)
• In flat slab structures ‐ the beam, column and wall design forces from lateral combinations.
A full description of this method is provided in the chapter
• General Building Analysis.
Eigenvalue Analysis
An Eigenvalue Analysis can (optionally) be performed as part of General Building Analysis to determine natural
frequencies and mode shapes.
A full description of this method is provided in the chapter:
• Eigenvalue Analysis.
Staged Construction Analysis
This is a sophisticated method of solution which takes account of time dependant effects. It is used in place of
general building analysis where it is felt necessary to model the time dependant properties of concrete.
Staged Construction Analysis can be used to determine:
• Frame deflections/sway sensitivity
• Beam design forces (from both vertical and lateral combinations)
• Column and Wall design forces (from both vertical and lateral combinations)
• Foundation Forces (from both vertical and lateral combinations)
• In flat slab structures ‐ the beam, column and wall design forces from lateral combinations.
• Staged Construction Analysis.
Footnotes
1. the exception being slabs, which can be designed directly using tabulated code coefficients, where applicable.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 4 : Analysis Methods
Finite Element Floor Analysis
Analysis is performed for vertical load cases and combinations on a single floor at a time extracted from the 3D
building. In the analysis model, slabs are represented by horizontal FE meshed floor elements and beams by
horizontal frame elements. Supporting columns and walls are also modelled (optionally) as frame elements as are
the columns and walls connecting with the slab from floors above.
Sequential FE floor analyses can be performed to chase gravity loads down through the structure. The resulting
column, wall and beam forces can be merged with those of the General Building Analysis.
FE floor analysis is required for the solution of flat slab (or flat plate) structures.
Finite Element Floor Analysis can be used to determine:
• Floor deflections
• Slab design forces
• Beam design forces (for vertical combinations)
• Column and wall design forces (for vertical combinations)
• Foundation forces (for vertical combinations)
• Analysis and Design using FE.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 5 : General Building Analysis
Chapter 5 General Building Analysis
Introduction
This chapter is split into two sections:
• The Structural Model section below describes various modelling considerations and analysis options that have
a significant impact on the building analysis result.
• The Building Analysis Problems – Reviewing/Understanding section discusses the error and warning messages
you might encounter when running a building analysis. It also describes how you can perform a model validity
check and how you can further cross check the analysis result using the Axial Load Comparison Report.
Structural Model
A full 3D analysis model is derived from the physical information that you describe when constructing the model.
This may sound like a relatively simple and comprehensive solution to the analytical modelling of any structure but
in fact there are numerous difficulties, options, and even personal preferences to consider here. The following list
introduces most of these items which are then discussed in more detail in the remainder of this section:
1. Diaphragm Modelling – The analysis model is a 3D frame (stick) model, slabs are only modelled in the sense
that their diaphragm action is accounted for. What are the options relating to how/when diaphragms are
included? How are inclined planes handled?
2. Global Constraints – What are they and when might you use them?
3. Pattern Loading – How is pattern loading catered for?
4. Rigid Zones – What are they and why would you use them?
5. Rigid Links – What are they?
6. Shear Walls and Core Wall Systems – How are walls modelled?
7. 3D Effects – A full 3D analysis will sometime give answers that you do not expect, is it wrong?
8. Stiffness adjustments – What options are available and when might you use them?
9. Flat Slab Construction – Dealing with structures that incorporate some degree of flat slab (flat plate)
construction.
10. Transfer Levels – Dealing with beams and slabs that support discontinuous columns or walls.
11. Supports – Default supports and how to create new support types.
Diaphragm Modelling
In a typical building lateral resistance is provide at a few discrete points and it is assumed that applied lateral loads
will be distributed to the lateral load resisting systems via floor diaphragm action. Within Orion diaphragm
modelling is achieved using diaphragm constraints.
A diaphragm constraint will maintain exact relative positioning of all nodes that it constrains, i.e. the distance
between any two nodes constrained by a diaphragm will never change, therefore no axial load will develop in any
member that lies in the plane of a diaphragm between any two constrained nodes.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When running the building analysis the model options tab gives options as shown below.
For the diaphragm modelling there are 3 options:
• Slabs to define rigid diaphragms (Default Setting),
• Single rigid diaphragm at each floor level,
• No rigid diaphragm floor levels.
The differences between these options can be demonstrated with the simple model below.
A single floor level has 2 separated slab areas that are linked by 2 beams.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Within the main graphics window Orion will always indicate a single overall centre of mass for the entire floor level
as shown below.
It is important to note that in the case of discrete diaphragms, or when there is no diaphragm at all, this overall
central location is provided for information only.
Slabs to define rigid diaphragms (Default Setting)
If the building is analysed with this setting then Orion will find any discrete areas of interconnecting slabs and set
up discrete diaphragms as appropriate. Separate notional loads are calculated and applied to each diaphragm area.
These applied notional loads and the resulting sways can all be examined in the model and analysis results display.
Perhaps the easiest way to see that 2 discrete diaphragms have been created is to look at an exaggerated view of
deflections.
For each of the two diaphragm areas a separate centre of mass location is determined and the notional load is
applied at that position. The view above shows the values for the Fy case in this example. Note that the mass of
the walls increases the applied notional load in the left hand diaphragm area. Clearly the right hand area is moving
independently to the left hand area which is better restrained by the walls as opposed to frame action.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Single rigid diaphragm at each floor level
If the building is analysed with this setting then Orion will find apply a single diaphragm constraint to every node at
any given level. The existence of slabs is completely ignored/irrelevant. A single notional load is calculated and
applied at the overall centre of mass as shown below. Once again the easiest way to see the effect of this setting is
to look at an exaggerated view of deflections.
This time we can see the entire level translating and rotating as a unit, since the centre of mass and hence the
applied notional load is very eccentric to the core walls, the dominant effect in this example is one of rotation.
No rigid diaphragm floor levels
If you have defined slabs but for some reason you do not wish a diaphragm effect to be considered you can
completely eliminate diaphragm constraints using this option. In this case notional loads are applied separately at
every node in the floor level, these applied notional loads and the resulting sways can all be examined in the model
and analysis results display. Once again the easiest way to see the effect of this setting is to look at an exaggerated
view of deflections.
The frame that is restrained by the wall hardly moves at all, other frames move to differing degrees. Note that the
frames which do not include walls have the same stiffness and so the differing deflections relate to differing
notional loads.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Excluding Specific Slabs from Diaphragms
In the example above there was no slab defined in the area linking region between grids 4 and 5. What if there was
a slab in this area as shown below?
If the linking slab was substantial you might consider that it maintains the diaphragm action between the two
areas. However, as the link becomes more slender then at some point you will decide it cannot maintain
diaphragm action between the two areas. In this case you can edit the properties of the slab and exclude it from
diaphragm as shown above. In this case you can still use the default option Slabs to Define Rigid Diaphragms and
the resulting deflections will be the same (ignoring small change due to additional notional load from the added
slab) as were shown above for that option.
Limitations ‐ diaphragm modelling and inclined planes
Inclined diaphragms can be created and are catered for correctly. It is also possible to have multiple differently
inclined diaphragms as long as they do not interconnect. However, it is not possible to cater for differently inclined
and interconnected diaphragms. In such a situation a single diaphragm constraint is formed that constrains all
nodes within it equally. This situation will trigger warnings during analysis as the results can be adversely affected.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Note If a warning appears during analysis, indicating that nodes constrained by a diaphragm do not
lie in the same plane, it should not be ignored. You should review the diaphragm model and
consider excluding any inclined slabs from it, this will often rectify the problem.
Case Study 1 ‐ single storey pitched frame
If either the Slabs to Define Rigid Diaphragm or Single Rigid Diaphragm at Each Floor Level option is used a warning
message is displayed during the analysis indicating that the nodes constrained by the diaphragm do not all lie in the
same plane.
A single diaphragm is created within the pitched roof as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
On first viewing the above may not appear unreasonable, however, because the rigid arms that constrain all the
nodes to move together are not co‐planar there are incorrect side effects as demonstrated by the bending moment
diagram below.
The diaphragm is holding up the mid‐span node on the raking beams causing an unexpected hogging moment at
that point. In addition, axial loads develop in the inclined beams (below) which would not happen if they existed in
a properly inclined diaphragm.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Considering a sway case (below), it seems that the diaphragm is constraining displacements in the horizontal plane
only.
The degree to which the results are affected is related to the pitch of the inclined beams. As the pitch reduces the
effect drops, however it should be noted that it is still significant even at relatively low pitches.
A workaround in this example would be to re‐run the analysis using the option No Rigid Diaphragm Floor Levels.
The resulting bending moment diagram is then as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Alternatively, exclude one of the slabs meeting at the apex (as described in the second case study below) so that
there are two differently inclined but separate diaphragms. (You should find results are very similar to those
obtained using the first workaround.)
Case Study 2 ‐ storeys linked by inclined planes
In this example inclined planes have been used to define ramps between the storey levels.
If either the Slabs to Define Rigid Diaphragm or Single Rigid Diaphragm at Each Floor Level option is used a warning
message is displayed during the analysis indicating that the nodes constrained by a diaphragm do not all lie in the
same plane.
Because the storeys are linked, a single diaphragm has been created constraining all the floor nodes as shown
below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When a lateral load is applied, each floor moves by the same amount ‐ obviously the model is not behaving as
intended.
Diaphragm action is required to help resist the lateral loads, so specifying No Rigid Diaphragm Floor Levels is not an
acceptable solution. The answer is to restrict diaphragm action to the horizontal floor planes only. This is achieved
by excluding the inclined slabs from the diaphragm as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Because the storeys are no longer linked, separate diaphragms are formed at each floor level as shown below.
By viewing the deflections under lateral load it can be seen that each floor is now moving independently of the
other floors as intended.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Global Constraints
You can use the options in the building analysis dialog shown above to apply general constraints to the floor
translation/rotation:
• X/Y and Torsion Permitted,
• X/Y Permitted, Torsion Prevented,
• Only X Permitted,
• Only Y Permitted,
The default setting is X/Y (translation) and Torsion Permitted and it allows full/free movement of the floor. This
means that the lateral load resisting systems you define will be required to stabilise the building. For the vast
majority of buildings this is an appropriate choice.
It is also possible to model a 2D frame in Orion, in such a case the permitted movement might be restricted to the
in‐plane direction, Only X, or Only Y as appropriate.
Pattern Loading
Designs codes generally require that pattern loading is considered in the analysis/design of continuous beams.
Orion has a method of automatically patterning both dead and imposed loads along continuous beam lines. This
subject is discussed in some detail in the Standard Training Manual.
Rigid Zones
Rigid zones deal with two aspects of the analysis and design of concrete frames:
1. Design codes generally allow you to design for forces at the face of a support.
2. From an analytical modelling point of view it is commonly accepted that a simple centre‐line model does not
properly idealise the physical size of members. By modelling rigid zones we account for the extra stiffness that
exist within the 3D block where the members physically interact with one another.
The chapter dealing with Wall Modelling Considerations shows examples that take this second point to a more
extreme level. Beams attach to the ends of walls (not the centre lines) and we are happy to models walls and
beams in this way. Why would the same not be true where beams attach to columns?
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
To demonstrate the effect of rigid zone modelling the following simple example will be used.
A simple symmetrical structure is shown in the rendered view above. When running the building analysis you have
a choice of 3 model options relating to rigid zones, none, reduced by 25%, and maximum as shown below.
The sections below describe what each of these options will do.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Rigid Zones – None
The analysis results are as shown above. The beam bending moment diagrams extend right to the centre of the
column, the beams will be designed for a support moment of 77.91 kNm and a span moment of 86.56 kNm.
This is the most simplistic analysis model and is likely to be the most similar to any models you may have created in
general analysis packages.
Rigid Zones – Reduced by 25%
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The analysis results are as shown above. Note that the beam bending moment diagrams do not extend right to the
centre of the column, they stop at the face of the column. The column moment diagram also stop at the underside
of the beams. No diagrams are shown on the rigid zone lengths.
Importantly, for this model type, although the bending moment diagram starts at the face of the column the actual
rigid length within the rigid zone only extends to 75% of this length (i.e. it is reduced by 25%).
Comparing the moment diagrams to the case where no rigid zones are used we see that:
1. The span moment is reduced from 86.56 kNm to 76.44 kNm. Adding rigid zones at the ends of beams generally
lifts the bending moment diagrams and hence will slightly reduce span moments.
2. Although the diagram has been lifted the support moment of 77.91 kNm has reduced slightly to 75.12 kNm
because the moment is now being taken at the face rather than the centre‐line of the column.
3. The column design moments are also reduced from 77.91 to 69.59 kNm.
Rigid Zones – Max
The analysis results are as shown above. Once again the beam bending moment diagrams do not extend right to
the centre of the column, they stop at the face of the column. The column moment diagram also stop at the
underside of the beams. No diagrams are shown on the rigid zone lengths.
Importantly, for this model type, the bending moment diagram starts at the face of the column AND the actual rigid
length within the rigid zone extends to 100% of this length (i.e. it is max).
Comparing the moment diagrams to the cases where no rigid zones and reduced rigid zones are used we see that:
1. The span moment is further reduced from 86.56 kNm to 76.44 to 73.2 kNm. Adding full rigid zones at the ends
of beams increases the lifting of the bending moment diagrams.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
2. In this case the diagram has been lifted so much that the support moment of 77.91 kNm which reduced slightly
to 75.12 kNm using reduced rigid zones has now increased to 78.36 kNm.
3. The column design moments which reduced from 77.91 to 69.59 kNm have also increased again slightly to
72.28 kNm.
Discussion
It should be noted that the simplistic model used above to demonstrate rigid zones does not deal with the
complexities of continuous beams and pattern loading and may to some degree exaggerate the effects of rigid zone
modelling. A more typical four span continuous beam example is considered below.
Above – results when no rigid zones are used.
Below – results when rigid zones are reduced by 25%, span moments reduced by 12% in end span, support
moments reduced by around 10%.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Below – results when maximum rigid zones are used, span moments reduced another 2–3% and support moments
increase again by 2–3% but are still less than the moments when no rigid zones are used.
In general the use of rigid zones reduced by 25% will result in the maximum reduction in support moments
combined with a less extreme reduction in the span moment. It is considered that this option will give maximum
efficiency and will be the preferred option for most designers using Orion.
NOTE: Although this option can often result in reduced support and span design moments, it should not be
confused with moment redistribution. In theory there is nothing to these design forces being further reduced by
the use of moment redistribution.
Rigid Links
3D analysis models are still centre‐line models, members need to line up to connect to each other. When you
construct a 3D model in a general analysis package you will naturally see where things do not line up and make
adjustments so that connections are made. When working in Orion you tend to feel that you are working with the
physical model rather than the analytical model that is derived from it. Sometimes members will not line up and in
such cases Orion will attempt to make the required connections by adding rigid links.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The simple example shown below should help clarify this.
The beams on grids 1 and 1a do not line up but are both supported by the same column. In this example this
column is actually inserted at the intersection of 1a and A1. If we look at a 3D stick view we can see the frame that
has been defined as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The column appears to support one of the beams but not the other. However, when the analysis is carried out
Orion will automatically connect the end of any beam that lies within the physical plan perimeter of any column or
wall to that column or wall. So when this model is analysed a rigid link is added as shown below.
In this example the column was defined in an offset manner directly in line with one of the beams. To be more
precise it could have been defined on a new grid on it’s own centre line and then rigid links would have been
created from both supporting beams to the column.
Note that rigid links should not be confused with rigid zones, rigid zones are not used in the above model but could
have been.
Note that rigid links will also be created where smaller offset columns sit on larger columns or walls in the floor
below.
Shear Walls and Core Wall Systems
There are optional methods for idealising walls within Orion. This subject is discussed at length in the chapter on
Wall Modelling Considerations.
3D Effects
In general our traditional engineering expectations are developed from considering simplified sub‐models for
analysis and design. When a full 3D model is created unanticipated effects sometimes creep in, is this wrong?
Some simple examples will help demonstrate these effects.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Continuous Beams
Traditionally continuous beam lines are analysed and designed in isolation. The modelling of the support
conditions in such cases is often unsophisticated. In the example below a series of 3 span secondary beams are
supported at different points on primary beams and also directly by columns.
When analysed in 3D using unadjusted gross member properties the bending moments for a general UDL case are
as shown below.
Note how the end span moments for the internal beams (which all carry the same load) vary from 38.94 to 49.54
kNm. The smallest value occurs on the central column line and largest occurs where the beam is supported at the
centre of the primary beam. The variation is not too significant but does start to indicate the importance of all the
relative stiffnesses in a 3D model.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
However, note that hogging moments develop at the extreme ends of the secondary beams where they are
supported by a primary beam. Investigation would show that these develop because torsional forces are
developing in the primary beams. A traditional 2D continuous beam line analysis will generally model this support
as a pin and no hogging moment will develop. In fact torsion is only usually considered in traditional hand
calculations where it’s development is essential to the local stability of the structure.
In generating the above results the default unadjusted properties of the rectangular beam sections were used in
the analysis. These results are exactly what you would get from any general 3D analysis package. In Orion you have
options to apply adjustment factors to the default properties of groups of elements as shown below.
These adjustments are discussed further in the next section, but it is worth noting here that by default Orion
suggests adjusting the torsional stiffness factor of beams by a factor of 0.01 (i.e. reducing to 1%). This is suggested
because in most cases this means that the results of a 3D analysis will be more compatible with the tried and tested
analysis/design achieved using older 2D idealisations.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When the model above is reanalysed using this setting the results are as shown below.
The hogging moments have disappeared and the end span moments have increased and become more consistent
at around 67 kNm.
Effects of one Member on Another
The most likely 3D effect is one where the design forces generated are not what you expect. This sort of effect
could happen in many different ways and becomes more likely as the structural arrangement becomes more
complicated and irregular. However, it can be demonstrated with the very simple model shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
A beam is selected along grid A at the front of the model. The loading, shear and moment diagrams for this beam
are shown below.
The loads are slightly offset due to the triangular area of slab being supported, but the bending moment diagram
shows an (unexpected?) sagging moment at the left end support and an (expected?) hogging moment at the right
end support. Can this be correct?
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The explanation relates to the diagonal beam across the floor. It has been loaded with an extra UDL. When the
structure is examined in the building analysis post processor we can see how it deflects and bends.
The heavily loaded diagonal beam is putting a big moment into the supporting columns and the joint is clearly
rotating. This rotation cannot happen without some effect on the other connected beams. When viewed in this
way the design moments in the beam do not seem unreasonable.
Innumerable examples of this nature could be developed. The point is that if the design forces in a member seem
wrong you cannot assume that the analysis is wrong. You need to review the results carefully and in particular look
at the nature of deflections.
Sway Effects
Many structures will undergo a natural sway under purely vertical (gravity) loads. These sways can sometimes
introduce significant changes to the expected moment diagrams in beams in much the same way as is shown in the
example above.
In such cases it is important to ensure that checks are made for combinations where notional load cases are applied
in sympathy with the natural sway of the structure.
In such situations where you might like to check for differences exposed by a 3D analysis of a floor in isolation, the
chapter Analysis and Design using FE introduces this option.
In more extreme cases buildings stabilised by shear and core walls will sway significantly under purely vertical load,
this topic is discussed in more detail in the chapter Wall Modelling Considerations.
Transfer Beams
The way in which load accumulates in columns that are in turn supported on transfer beams in a full 3D analysis is
often at odds with initial/traditional expectations. This subject is specifically dealt with in the series of chapters
dealing with transfer levels and in particular the section Discussion of Frame Analysis Results in the chapter Transfer
Beams – General Method.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Stiffness adjustments
When you construct a model you set/control the analysis model properties by:
• Using the Building Parameters options to globally set/change material properties.
• Applying releases (pins) to any member end.
• Selecting any individual member and override the calculated section properties.
When you run building analysis you then have options to apply global adjustment factors to the properties of
members on a group by group basis as shown in the dialog below.
Some reasons why you might use these options could include:
Minimising Torsion in Beams
In the 3D Effects section earlier in this chapter, the Continuous Beams example shows how torsions will often
develop in 3D analysis. These torsions would not have been identified or designed for using more traditional
subframe analysis. When the torsions are reduced or eliminated the major axis design moments usually go up. For
this reason Orion defaults to the setting shown above which reduces torsional stiffness by a factor of 100.
However, if you have a model that (unusually) actually relies on torsion for stability then using the above setting
will often mean that extremely large deflections accrue.
Investigating Deflections
You could use different values of Young’s Modulus to investigate different loading conditions – for example use the
default short‐term value when considering wind load conditions, then reanalyse with multipliers to reduce Young’s
Modulus to allow for long‐term effects in other cases and general design.
Flat Slab Construction
It is worth noting here that the 3D analysis model of a complete building is primarily a frame element model with
an option to use FE meshing of shear/core walls. It does not include FE meshed floor elements. Since flat slab (or
flat plate) structures do not include beams the basic 3D building analysis will not deal with these structures on it’s
own.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Orion supports the analysis and design of Braced Flat Slab Structures by integrating the results of sequential finite
element floor analyses (a top down procedure referred to as FE Chase down) with the results of the 3D building
analysis. The chapter Flat Slab Models describes the solution provided for these circumstances.
Transfer Levels
A transfer level is an upper level within the structure at which one or more columns or walls stop. The
discontinuous column or wall is supported by beams or slabs such that it’s load is transferred to other columns/
walls.
This topic is discussed at length in a series of chapters and worked examples beginning with the chapter Overview
of Solution Options for Transfer Levels.
Supports
In a simple model such as the one shown below, all columns and walls finish at a common foundation level.
In such models, by default a fixed support is automatically placed underneath each column and each wall at the top
of the common foundation level, (indicated by the grey plane).
If a fixed support is inappropriate, a pinned or spring support can be defined using Support Type Definitions from
the Members menu.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Having defined a new support type, it can then be assigned to a specific column or wall using the member
properties as shown:
Note the special meaning of Support Type: Default
For columns and walls that stop at ST00 ‐ Default = Fixed Support
For columns and walls that stop at ST01 and above‐ Default = No Support
User defined supports are further discussed in the chapter Modelling Techniques. This chapter also discusses their
application to stepped foundation levels.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Building Analysis Problems – Reviewing/Understanding
The majority of regular models constructed in Orion will run through building analysis without any messages.
However for some models the building analysis process can display error or warning messages at various stages
during execution.
Tip There is an option to run validation checks at any stage, if your building analysis is giving errors
or warnings and you have not run the validation checks, it is recommended that you do so.
This may expose the cause of problems.
Tip Many building validation errors can be avoided by ensuring that the option to check the
validity automatically each time a member is inserted is active. This is done from the Settings
menu by choosing General Settings, clicking on the View tab, and ensuring that you leave the
option Don’t check Model During Member Insertion unchecked.
Note On completion of analysis a series of comparisons are made between the loads that you
applied and the results of load decomposition and subsequent analysis. If the differences
exceed a small percentage variation warnings will be given. All such warnings should be
investigated.
Note Beyond the above, it is not anticipated that you need to read this section until such time as you
are trying to understand or resolve errors or warnings.
What are Errors?
Errors may indicate solution problems (errors) or modelling errors on physical/engineering grounds.
Errors cannot be ignored, you should investigate until you understand the error message and if possible take action
to remedy the situation or contact Technical Support.
What are Warnings?
Once understood, warnings can often be ignored – the important point is that you take the time to review the
messages and decide whether an action is warranted.
Different Errors and Warnings will appear at the different stages of the Building Analysis Process.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Building Model Validity Checking Errors
Building Validation checks the eight conditions indicated in the dialog:
If any of these conditions occur an error message will be displayed which will clearly indicate the members that are
invalid. You should return to the graphic editor to correct the error and then re‐perform the building model validity
check to confirm the problem has been resolved.
On rare occasions a particular error message is displayed:
Error: beam 1B157 is overlapping with beam 1B157
At first this does not appear to make sense since it suggests that a beam is overlapping with itself. On investigation
you will find that there are two beams with identical labels at exactly the same location. If you encounter this
problem you should simply delete one of the beams while checking that you have not lost any manually applied
loads. Note that you will not immediately see the other beam after deleting the first one, but executing the redraw
or regen function will make it reappear.
Note: If there are no errors as a result of Building Model Validity Checking, it does not follow that your model is
100% error free. There are many other conditions that are not checked at this stage, which could result in your
model being incorrect. These conditions are checked during later stages of the building analysis process.
Beam Load Analysis Errors
There should be no errors encountered during Beam Load Analysis.
In some complex arrangements where irregular slabs are supported by numerous beams and walls on a complex
perimeter problems may be encountered. Please report any such problem to your support department. Note that
these problems may be overcome by redefining the slab, or perhaps by passed by using the option for FE load
decomposition.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Building Analysis Errors and Warnings
Just as in any general 3D analysis package, you can define releases as you create the structure and hence you have
the flexibility to create mechanisms within the structure. Most unexpected analysis messages will relate to the
existence of such mechanisms.
If you see messages about singularities as shown above than it usually means that too many pin ended members
have been defined. It is recommended that you review the structural model in the Building Analysis postprocessor
and eliminate the unnecessary releases.
If there are so many releases that the structure is unstable then this will usually result in the message shown below.
This message should never be ignored unless you are dealing with a transfer slab structure – see below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The following warning messages are commonly displayed during Graphical Data Preparation:
The above message informs you that columns (and walls) exist at an upper storey but do not continue to
foundation level and that the means of support at the transfer level are uncertain. (i.e. a column sitting on a beam
does not generate such a warning.)
Action Required
If it is intended that the columns are transfer columns and you are clear as to the means of support (e.g. a transfer
slab) then you can ignore the warning provided that you have taken account of the related requirements outlined
in the chapter Overview of Solution Options for Transfer Levels later in this handbook.
If it is not intended to be a transfer column return to the graphic editor and remodel so that you have a support
member in the desired location.
Overview of Axial Load Comparison Report
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
A simple model can be created for a simple illustration of the Axial Load Comparison Report. The 3D view of the
model is as above. The plan view of the model is as below.
General information regarding the model.
• Beam size: 250 mm (width) x 500 mm (depth)
• Column size: 500 mm x 250 mm
• Column Height: 2800 mm
• Slab Thickness: 175 mm – therefore self‐weight = 4.2 kN/m2
• Loadings on slab: self‐weight (calculated automatically based on thickness of slab)
SIDL = 1 kN/m2
Total Dead Load = 5.2 kN/m2
Imposed Load = 0 kN/m2
The following report is produced by Orion for this model. Note that there are 4 main sections (tables) of
information the headings of which have been emboldened.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
AXIAL LOAD COMPARISON REPORT
SUM OF APPLIED LOADS (Using Un-Decomposed Slab Loads):

------------------------------------------------------
G - Dead Loads:
Storey Column ShearWall Beam Slab Rib Total

(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 33.6 0.0 65.0 117.3 0.0 215.9
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 215.9
Q - Live Loads:

------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 0.000
SUM OF APPLIED LOADS (After Decomposing Slab Loads):

----------------------------------------------------
G - Dead Loads:

------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 33.6 0.0 182.3 0.0 0.0 215.9
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 215.9
Q - Live Loads:

------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 0.000
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
BUILDING ANALYSIS COLUMN/SHEARWALL AXIAL LOADS:

-----------------------------------------------
Storey G Delta G Q Delta Q
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 215.9 215.9 0.0 0.0
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 215.9 0.0
FINITE ELEMENTS ANALYSIS COLUMN/SHEARWALL AXIAL LOADS:

------------------------------------------------------
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 223.6 223.6 0.0 0.0
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 223.6 0.0
The purposes and validity of the comparisons that can be made between the sections of this table are discussed in
the following sections.
Table 1
SUM OF APPLIED LOADS (Using Un-Decomposed Slab Loads):
------------------------------------------------------
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 33.6 0.0 65.0 117.3 0.0 215.9
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 215.9
Q - Live Loads:

------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 0.000
This table shows the sum of:
• Member self‐weights
• Applied loads on beams
• Applied loads on slabs
The slab loads are calculated based on the area as seen on plan – i.e they are not yet decomposed onto beams.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The detailed calculations are therefore as follows:
Columns Self Weight = 0.25 m x 0.5 m x 2.8 m(height) x 24 kN/m 3 x 4(nos)

P P
= 33.6 kN
Beams Loads = [(0.25 m(width of beam) x 5 m(length) x 4(nos)) x 0.5 m(depth of
beam) x 24 kN/m 3 ] + [(0.25 m(width of beam) x 5 m(length)) x 1 kN/
P P
m 2 ] <additional beam loads from SIDL >
P P
= 65 kN
Slab Loads = [(5 m ‐ 0.25 m(half width of beam x 2)) x (5 m ‐ 0.25 m(half width of
beam x 2))] x 5.2 kN/m 2 P P
= 117.3 kN
Table 2
Differences between this table and table 1 are specifically intended to expose problems in slab load decomposition.
Since there are two methods of slab load decomposition supported we will look at each of these separately.
Using Yield Line Decomposition
----------------------------------------------------
G - Dead Loads:

------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 33.6 0.0 182.3 0.0 0.0 215.9
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 215.9
Q - Live Loads:

------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 0.000
Once again this table shows the sum of:
• Member Self‐weights
• Applied loads on beams
• Applied loads on slabs
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The key difference in this table is that the slab loads are now decomposed and thus counted as UDL’s, VDL’s etc. on
the supporting beams. Therefore, you will find that the slab loads become zero but the beam loads increase
accordingly.
Decomposed Slab Loads – Consider again the model and the decomposed slab loads shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The plan view shows the yield lines, strictly speaking these are really just load decomposition lines which are used
to show the area of slab loading that will be attributed to each beam. This method of area load decomposition is
commonly known as the Yield Line Method. Looking at the triangular load distribution generated on the above
beam, the beam load calculation effectively becomes:
Decomposed Slab Load = (A1 + A2 + A3 + A4) kN/m2 <Please refer to diagram>
= 4 x 29.33 kN
= 117.3 kN
The beam loading profile and the above calculation clearly get much more complex when more irregular slab
arrangements are used.
The calculations reported in table 2 are therefore as follows:
Columns Self Weight = UNCHANGED
= 33.6 kN
Beams Loads = 65 kN + 117.3 kN
= 182.3 kN
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Using Finite Element Decomposition
If slab loads are decomposed using the alternative FE method, the loadings from the slab are applied to the beam
as a complex beam load as shown below.

----------------------------------------------------
G - Dead Loads:

------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 33.6 0.0 182.0 0.0 0.0 215.6
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 215.6
Q - Live Loads:

------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 0.0
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Comparisons between tables 1 and 2
Comparison between these 2 tables provides an indication of the success of the slab load decomposition. If the
totals in table 2 are less than those in table 1 this would give an indication that loads have gone missing during the
decomposition process in which case you should:
1. Check that slab loads are applied within slab boundaries
2. Visually Check Yield Lines – if they do not look right on the plan the decomposition is probably not right.
3. If Yield Lines are wrong, consider swapping to the FE Load Decomposition method.
Note Both FE and Yield Line decomposition decompose slab loads to beams. If there are areas
without beams (where slabs are supported directly by columns – i.e. Flat Slabs) the
decomposition process is guaranteed to lose load. In such cases full FE analysis must be used
and the discrepancy between the totals in tables 1 and 2 should be seen as an indicator of this
requirement.
Note In all but the simplest of models, there will always be a small discrepancy between table 1 and
2. However, this can be ignored especially if the decomposed load in table 2 is slightly higher
than the un‐decomposed load in table 1.
Table 3
BUILDING ANALYSIS COLUMN/SHEARWALL AXIAL LOADS:
-----------------------------------------------

(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 215.9 215.9 0.0 0.0
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 215.9 0.0
The figures in this table reflect the results of the building frame analysis. The building analysis is a frame analysis
where the beams are loaded with all the decomposed slab loads. Therefore the input is based on either the yield
line or FE Load Decomposition method; whichever has been selected.
When the analysis is complete the accumulated column loads on each storey are shown in the table.
It is therefore appropriate to compare table 2 with table 3 which is in effect a comparison of analysis input with
analysis results. If the totals are different the building analysis is incorrect in some way in which case you should
check:
• If there were warnings during the building analysis, have you ignored them and is it OK to ignore them?
• If transfer levels exist, check whether the discontinuous columns are properly supported.
Note Flat slab models are a good example of the case where there will be discrepancies and loads
are lost, but this can all be ignored since Finite Element Analysis load Chase Down is required –
see next section.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Table 4
Note This table is only available if an FE Chase Down (finite element analysis load chase‐down) has
been performed:
When performing the FE Floor Analysis, there are 2 options available.
Option 1: Include Slab Plates in FE Model
When this option is active as shown above, a meshed up FE model is created as shown below.
Slab loads are applied to all the individual shells and so the slab load decomposition is effectively inherent in the FE
analysis of the floor.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
After analysis the total axial loads in columns and walls are derived at each level and reported in table 4 as shown
below.
FINITE ELEMENTS ANALYSIS COLUMN/SHEARWALL AXIAL LOADS:

------------------------------------------------------

(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
St01 223.6 223.6 0.0 0.0
------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total 223.6 0.0
The total loads and self‐weights reported will always be slightly different in FE analysis because this is a true
centre‐line model. In this simple example the loads effectively total up as follows:
Column Self Weight = 0.25 m x 0.5 m x 2.8 m(height) x 24 kN/m3 x 4(nos)
= 33.6 kN
(this part is unchanged)
Beams Loads = [(0.25 m(width of beam) x 5 m(length) x 4(nos)) x 0.5 m(depth) x 24
kN/m3]
= 60 kN
(i.e. self weight only – finishes loads are not applied to the beam)
Slab Self Weight = (5 m x 5 m) <area of meshing plan> x 5.2 kN/m2
= 130.0 kN
(see note below)
Total = 60 kN + 33.6 kN + 130.0 kN
= 223.6 kN
Note The area of the slab used in the FE model is different (greater) than the area used in tables 1
and 2 because the slab extends to the centre‐line (not the edge) of the beam. This has two
effects:
• The self weight if the slab in the zone that overlaps with the beam is double counted –
small extra load.
• The finishes and imposed loads that apply on the outer edge of edge beams will not be
counted – small loss of load.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When this option is used it is appropriate to compare the totals in table 1 with table 4 (Load before decomposition
and FE analysis results which embody both decomposition and analysis). Some degree of difference must be
accepted for the following reasons:
• In all models, there will be a slight difference for the reasons noted above.
• The FE method makes much better allowance for holes in slabs.
If totals returned from FE Analysis (table 4) are significantly less than totals from table 1, the FE Analysis model may
be incorrect. In such cases the following possibilities should be checked:
• Are slab line loads applied outside the building perimeter or over voids.
• If the option to include column and wall sections in the model has been used, are slab line loads applied
through columns or walls (the load inside the column or wall boundary is included in table 1 but is not taken
into account in the FE analysis because the load could not physically exist.)
• As above, but checking for point loads applied inside column boundary.
• Incorrectly modelled cantilever slabs.
Note The totalling of loads in table 4 will be incorrect if some columns are len(storey) 2 or more, but
the results themselves are actually correct.
Option 2: Exclude Slab Plates in FE Model
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In this case the FE analysis is simply a 3D frame analysis where the decomposed slab loads are applied to the
beams.
In this case it is valid to compare table 2 with table 4 since this is checking that the decomposed loads which were
intended to be applied to the FE models have been successfully applied.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 6 : Eigenvalue Analysis
Chapter 6 Eigenvalue Analysis
Introduction
An Eigenvalue Analysis can be performed as part of the Building Analysis in order to calculate natural frequencies
and mode shapes; these will be dependent on storey mass and model stiffness. The Eigenvalue Analysis results can
then be used for seismic design purposes and can also be of value if wind tunnel tests are required.
Eigenvalue Analysis Parameters
Controlling the Storey Mass
The storey mass for Eigenvalue analysis is always based on the dead load G plus a fraction of the live load Q.The
degree to which the live load is assumed to participate is controlled by the participation factor (n), which can be
specified on the Lateral Loading tab of the Building Parameters dialog.
Note For Lateral Load calculations, the storey weight can be based on G or Q or G+nQ. The Live Load
Participation Factor, (n) does not affect the Notional Load Calculation unless the G+nQ option
is selected.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The G and Q components of the Storey Mass/Weight can be derived from either the decomposed beam loads, or
the undecomposed slab loads. The method used is controlled via the Settings tab of the Building Analysis Model
Options dialog as shown below.
The mass/weight determined for the chosen option can be reviewed by hovering the cursor over the Center of
Gravity of the form plan after running a Building Analysis.
C of G based on Un-decomposed Slab Loads, m = 553t
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
C. of G. based on Decomposed Beam Loads, m = 106t
If all slabs transfer their loads to beams or walls, either option should produce a similar mass/weight. This can
clearly be seen not to be the case in the above (flat slab) example ‐ the mass determined using the Decomposed
Beam Loads option is significantly smaller than that from the Use Undecomposed Slab Loads option. In such models
it is important that the latter option is always selected.
Model Stiffness
The engineer should use section properties that are appropriate for the Eigenvalue Analysis. For columns and walls
this could involve making global stiffness adjustments to model cracked section properties. The ACI code may be
referred to for some guidance in this regard. These adjustments can be made via the Model Options/Stiffnesses tab
of the Building Analysis dialog.
Controlling the Number of Mode Shapes Required
These are set on the Lateral Loading tab of the Building Parameters dialog.
Analysis
The analysis produces results for both the Static and Eigenvalue Analysis that can be accessed simultaneously in the
graphical post processor.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Graphical Results
To view a mode shape, activate the Displacements button and select the mode shape required from the Loading
menu as shown below. Animation can be activated if required from the Displacements menu.
Numerical Results
Numerical output from the analysis is accessed from the Reports tab – Eigenvalue Results Report Button.
The report shows information relating to the frequencies and mass participations as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 7 : Staged Construction Analysis
Chapter 7 Staged Construction Analysis
Introduction
Staged construction analysis is a sophisticated method of solution which, if used with a reasonable degree of care
can more closely reflect the real behaviour of the structure.
A standard 3D analysis takes no account of time dependant effects ‐ it assumes the structure has been constructed
instantaneously. In the real world a concrete building has to be constructed in stages ‐ typically one floor at a time.
Depending on the number of storeys within the building a significant period of time can elapse from the
commencement of first floor to completion of the top floor. Because concrete matures with time, this means that
at the top floor the concrete has properties which ‘lag behind’ those of the first floor (and to a reducing degree
each intermediate floor).
Another aspect of the staged nature of concrete construction is that any settlement of existing lower floors which
takes place prior to the pouring of the current floor is allowed for on site when establishing the current floor level.
This effect can not be allowed for in a standard 3D analysis, however it is catered for automatically in a staged
construction analysis.
Simple Example
A model consisting of two blocks is constructed as shown below. The first floor plan and loading is identical in both
blocks. A second floor framework is added to the right hand block but with no imposed load applied to that level.
A standard 3D analysis can be performed for the above, in which all members are analysed simultaneously with all
the loads applied.
A staged construction analysis can also be performed. If the option were selected to stage the imposed load only,
the analysis would proceed as follows:
• In the first stage, only the first floors are analysed for their imposed load.
• In the second stage, the second floor is added and the analysis repeated (for the undeformed model) but this
time only for the imposed load at second floor level.
Note In this way, each stage can only affect the result in it’s own and previous stages.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Results for Q ‐ Unstaged
In the unstaged result you can see that Q load applied at first floor is causing moments to develop in the structure
above. If that frame existed when the load was applied then this is completely logical.
Results for Q ‐ Staged
In the staged result no moments develop in the frame above the first floor members and in fact the forces in the
first floor structure are identical in the single storey frame and the two storey frame. This is logical if all the load is
applied before the frame above exists AND assuming that all deflection is instantaneous.
Note The effect of creep is not considered in the above ‐ in reality the first floor beams would
continue to deflect and the joints continue to rotate after the frame has been built and loaded.
Therefore, although there are no moments in the second floor frame at the point at which it is
constructed, the creep of the first floor structure should cause some moments to develop over
time in the second floor.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Staged Construction Modelling and Analysis
Model Creation
No additional steps are required when creating a model for staged construction. Stages are created automatically,
(each storey being treated as a separate stage). Stages can be adjusted once the model has been created as
described in the section Stage Control.
Staged Loading Creation
Staged loading is specified within the Load Combination Editor by clicking the Loading Generator button.
Using the controls you are able to stage any gravity load case and then create combinations of staged and unstaged
cases.
Stage Construction Cases — Check this box to activate staged construction.
Stage Duration — Specify the default duration of each stage, this can subsequently be amended for individual
stages ‐ see Stage Control.
Stage Construction Cases: G — Check this box to create an sG staged loadcase.
Stage Construction Cases: Q — Check this box to create an sQ staged loadcase.
Create New Combinations for Staged G and Q — When not checked one set of combinations is created which
uses the staged cases, when checked two sets of combinations are created, one with the unstaged cases and
the second with the staged cases.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The result of checking the Create New Combinations for Staged G and Q box is shown below:
Combinations 1 to 7 are not staged at all, combinations 8 to 14 use fully staged G + Q. Alternatively you may choose
to have combinations of staged G and unstaged Q.
As shown above, the Loading Generator populates the Load Combinations Editor with a column header for each
staged and unstaged loadcase. The generated combinations are displayed in rows.
Note You are not restricted to the automatically generated combinations and factors, you have
complete control to add, delete, or modify the combinations as you see fit.
In this way you can design for an envelope of staging assumptions. Note that you can even include staged pattern
load cases! While in reality this may not seem entirely logical, it might actually be the best way of getting closest to
the results generated by traditional sub‐frame analysis. However, staged G plus unstaged Q might be preferred
because they create the worst effects in different places and might actually produce a lower peak.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Stage Control
Stages are defined within the Load Combination Editor by firstly clicking the Load Cases button. Next, highlight a
staged loadcase, (for example SG as shown below) and click Edit.
Initially each floor level is considered to be a stage ‐ so by default a 5 storey building is analysed in 5 stages as
shown below:
You can if required specify different time durations for the individual stages. See Setting the Duration of Each Stage
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Combining multiple floors into a single stage
You are not restricted to having each floor analysed as a separate stage, several storeys can be combined into a
single stage.
For example you may choose to analyse the previous 5 storey building in just 2 stages:
• Stage 1 as displayed above comprises storeys 1 and 2,
• Stage 2 comprises storeys 3, 4 and 5.
To reduce the original five stages to two stages you would proceed as follows:
1. Stage 1 must always start at storey 1 so this is left as is,
2. Stage 2 starts at storey 3, when this is entered the screen is shown thus:
3. Stages 3 and 4 are not required and need to be deleted ‐ this is achieved by clicking in the topmost stage (4) and
putting "0" in the storey column.
4. Repeat once more so that you are left with stages 1 and 2.
Combining the entire structure into a single stage
The same technique for deleting stages can be used to place the entire structure in a single stage. The reason for
doing this is to allow the model to be simultaneously designed for patterned load combinations derived from the
building analysis AND combinations derived from the FE merged load cases. See FE Merging for details.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Setting the Duration of Each Stage
The duration of each stage controls the modulus of elasticity used at that stage ‐ it is assumed that a normal
cement is used so that Ec at age t is estimated by:
Ec(t) = E(t)Ec(28)1
with
E(t) = squareroot (cc(t)
where
(cc(t) = exp [0.25(1 ‐ squareroot (28/t)]
The significance of the stage duration on Ec is illustrated below:
Duration 1 day 0.59 Ec(28)
Duration 15 days 0.96 Ec(28)
From the above it can be seen that changes due to duration do not have a large impact on the results after the first
few days.
Analysis Properties
As per unstaged construction, factors are applied via the Model Options/Stiffnesses tab (shown above). These are
applied across all construction stages.
Modulus of Elasticity
The Modulus of Elasticity Factor in particular requires careful consideration as it should be employed in order to
make any allowances for creep and cracking. The value entered here is applied to the short term modulus of
elasticity Ec(28) defined in Material dialog.
As described in the previous section Setting the Duration of Each Stage further factors are then applied to the E
value to account for the duration of each construction stage.
Note Any allowance for creep is only dealt with effectively in the context of an unstaged analysis..
Note The E value adopted is very important in relation to sway sensitivity assessment for EC2 (and
for other codes also if the ACI sway option is used).
Footnotes
1. Taken fron ‘Concrete Structures’ Amin Ghali, Renaud Favre, M. Elbadry
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
FE Merging
When G and Q loads are merged from the FE analysis they replace all the G and Q loadcases ‐ so G‐fe replaces G,
GP11, GP12, and Q‐fe replaces Q, QP11, QP12, etc.
Staged loadcases are never replaced by FE merged results ‐ the consequence of this on the combinations is as
follows:
• For combinations of entirely staged cases no merging takes place.
• For combinations of entirely unstaged cases ‐ G, GP11, GP12, Q, QP11, QP12, etc. are replaced.
• For combinations that contain both staged and unstaged cases, only the unstaged cases are replaced.
The latter situation is investigated in more depth below:
Terminology:
G and Q = results from 3D analysis
G‐s and Q‐s = results from 3D analysis where staged construction has been considered
G‐fe and Q‐fe = results merged from FE floor analysis where limitations noted above continue to apply.
1. Initially both G and Q are staged and the option to ‘Create New Combinations for Staged G and Staged Q’ is
checked:
the result is that before merging there are two sets of combinations:
G + Q
G‐s + Q‐s
In this case the merged FE forces would affect the unstaged combinations. Therefore:
G‐fe + Q‐fe
G‐s + Q‐s
This may be considered to be an attractive mix of combinations by some engineers.
2. You may have chosen to edit the original combinations so that the first combination is based on staged rather
than unstaged G, hence before merging the two sets of combinations are:
G‐s + Q
G‐s + Q‐s
FE merging only affects the unstaged results so in this case you would end up designing for an envelope that
simultaneously considers
G‐s + Q‐fe
G‐s + Q‐s
3. You may have chosen not to stage Q at all in which case before merging there is a single combination:
G‐s + Q
FE merging only affects the unstaged results so in this case you would end up designing for:
G‐s + Q‐fe
The above might or might not be considered adequate, that is for you to decide.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Simulaneously designing for FE merged forces and the results of a completely unstaged analysis.
Clearly the above introduces the possibility that FE merged forces can be designed for simultaneously with a
combination where staged conditions are considered. What it does not allow is the possibility of simultaneously
designing for FE merged forces and for the results of a completely unstaged analysis.
However, a workaround can be employed to achieve this if you run a ‘single’ staged construction analysis for both G
and Q as follows:
• In the Load Generator, check the options to stage both G and Q and also to ‘Create New Combinations for
Staged G and Staged Q’:
• Edit the two staged loadcases so that the entire model is put in the first stage and set the duration to 28 days.
• Before merging there are now two sets of combinations, (although the staged combination produces exactly
the same result as the unstaged):
G + Q
G‐s + Q‐s
FE merging only affects the unstaged results so you end up designing for an envelope that simultaneously
considers
G‐fe + Q‐fe
G‐s + Q‐s (which in this case is identical to G + Q)
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 8 : Analysis and Design using FE
Chapter 8 Analysis and Design using FE
Introduction
When you run FE Floor analysis you are presented with many options. In this chapter we aim to help make sense of
these options by providing an overview of their meaning/effect and also indicate when each option would tend to
be of most importance. Throughout this chapter we will also cross reference to more detailed examples that
illustrate the use of each option in practice.
Model Generation Options
When you run the FE Floor Analysis module the following dialog will immediately be displayed.
If you have previously run an analysis for the floor the settings will have been saved and will now be redisplayed. A
brief introduction to each item/option is given below.
Column / Shear Wall Model Type
You have a choice of 3 model types:
1. The short frame model.
2. Z Restrained (Pinned Support) Model.
3. Elastic Spring Element.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
As shown below, the short frame model option creates a 3D subframe for the floor including the columns/walls.
The other two models do not include the columns/walls and so any fixity moments that develop between the floor
system and the columns are excluded.
We strongly recommend that the default Short Frame Model is used unless/until you have some specific reason to
try another option.
Beam Stiffness Multiplier
When the FE model is generated it uses the gross section properties of the un‐flanged beam when calculating the
inertia (I). Young’s Modulus (E) is taken as defined in the main building parameters.
It is possible that you may want to increase I to account for flanged section properties. It is also possible that you
may want to decrease I to account for cracking, creep and shrinkage if deflection is a concern.
However, in framed systems deflection is generally not a concern and the advice given in Codes/Standards is that a
consistent set of properties be used. Since the column properties are based on the gross section, it is felt that the
default use of the gross section properties of the un‐flanged beam is generally appropriate.
Slab Stiffness Multiplier
As for beams, the FE model is generated using the gross section properties of the slab when calculating the inertia
(I). Once again Young’s Modulus (E) is taken as defined in the main building parameters.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When you are looking at a beam and slab system, it is considered highly likely that you will want to reduce the slab
stiffness relative to the beam stiffness. Even with a flat slab system, you may also decide to adjust the slab stiffness.
The reasons for this are best understood by reference to the following examples:
• For Beam and Slab Systems, refer to the Worked Example – Beam and Slab Systems section later in this chapter.
• For Flat Slab Systems refer to the chapter Flat Slab Models and in particular the discussion of slab deflection
estimation.
Column and Wall Stiffness Multipliers
The FE model is generated using the gross section properties when calculating the inertia (I). and the Young’s
Modulus (E) is taken as defined in the main building parameters.
Typically you would only need to adjust the column stiffness for the purpose of making a cracking and creep
allowance.
Cracking and Creep
As previously stated the advice given in Codes/Standards is that a consistent set of properties be used. Hence if the
Cracking and Creep function is used the calculated stiffness factor is applied by default to all member types.
Include Column Sections in FE Model
This option allows you to create a more sophisticated model that idealises a rigid zone extending to the perimeter
of the column sections. This modelling sophistication is really only of interest in flat plate models where it helps
tackle the problem of extreme local hogging moments that are generated over column heads in traditional analysis
model idealisations. Refer to the chapter on Flat Slab Models for an example of the effect of this option. Note that
activating this option may introduce more meshing difficulties during model generation.
For beam and slab models this option has little positive effect and may only introduce difficulties, hence we
recommend it is better not to activate this option for such models.
Include Slab Plates in FE Model
This option allows you to create floor grillage models where the slabs are not modelled or meshed. In these
models the beams are loaded using the same decomposed loads as are applied in the general building analysis.
This modelling option has a various potential uses:
1. A fast solution option for Transfer Beams – Refer to the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1
(Simplest) for a worked example.
2. It allows you to investigate grillage effects that are not normally considered in any subframe analysis. For
example the forces in a line of secondary beams can be influenced by the varying rigidity of primary support
beams. As in the transfer beam example noted above, you have the option to merge results and check beams
for the results of alternative analytical idealisations.
Consider Beam Torsional Stiffness
The option to consider or exclude beam torsional stiffness for FE analysis has been included to allow you to model
in line with traditionally accepted idealisations. For example, in hand calculations, or in any continuous beam
design package, and in fact in Orion’s 2D sub‐structuring approach to building analysis, a continuous secondary
beam supported by other primary beams is assumed to receive vertical support, but rotational compatibility is
ignored. i.e. a secondary beam will not introduce torsions in a supporting primary beam.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In practice these torsions are known to exist, but are assumed not to be significant. When this option is not
checked Orion’s 3D floor analysis will operate more in line with this commonly accepted idealisation.
Note however that in some models excluding the beam torsional stiffness will allow a mechanism to develop.
In the example shown here a curved elevation is modelled with a series of straight beams. If the FE model is
created without including beam torsional stiffness the deflections are extreme, indicating the presence of a
mechanism.
Around the curve, moments in one element translate to a combination of moments and torsions in the adjacent
elements due to the angular change.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When remodelled including beam torsional stiffness the deflections diagrams start to look much more reasonable
as shown below.
Note Orion does not consider torsion within beam design, so if significant torsions are developing
these would need separate design checks. You can check torsion levels by reviewing the FE
Analysis Output Report, or if you have S‐Frame, you can export to that and review the results
graphically.
Include Upper Storey Column Loads
This option allows you to automatically include the column self weight and also reactions from the FE analysis of
the floor above as loading input for the current floor. This enables an FE load chase down procedure that allows
Orion to provide solutions for transfer beams/slabs. Refer to the chapters on these options starting with Overview
of Solution Options for Transfer Levels for a full discussion and worked examples.
Upper Storey Column Loads Table
This option displays a table allowing you to review the column loads being applied when the above Include Upper
Storey Column Loads option is used.
Floor Mesh and Analysis
This option opens the modelling window in which you can mesh and then refine the mesh for your floor model.
This is discussed in a little more detail in the following section Meshing and Analysing your Model.
If you have chosen to model without plates then meshing is unnecessary, you can simply enter and immediately
exit this window in order to generate the beam element model.
When you exit from this window the model will be automatically analysed.
Batch FE Chasedown
This option displays a table allowing you to specify all of the model generation options and mesh parameters
required for every floor in the building. By clicking on OK you are then able to perform the chasedown procedure
for all floors in a single batch. An option is provided for you to check and if necessary adjust the meshing at each
floor. It is recommended that the meshing is reviewed and approved during the first run and also after any
significant edits.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
If you need to abort the chasedown at any stage simply click on the cross at the top right of the analysis progress
window shown below.
Meshing and Analysing your Model
If Slab Plates are NOT included
When you click the mesh generation option, you initially see an isometric view of the model. If you have chosen
this model type you do not need to do anything in this window, the complete model is already created, you simply
need to exit at which point the model will be automatically analysed.
If you wish, you can review the model by activating more of the view options from the menu on the left of the
screen. The options you are most likely to switch on/off are also available as drop down iconised menus along the
top of the screen ‐ you should find these more convenient to use. However all of this (and more) can also be
reviewed in the results window.
For detailed examples using this modelling option, refer to the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1
(Simplest) or to the section on Merging Beam Resultslater in this chapter.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
If Slab Plates are included
When slab plates are included, you need to mesh up the model before exiting the mesh generation option.
Prior to generating the mesh it is imperative that all columns have been positioned on slab boundaries ‐ otherwise
no connection can be formed between the slab and the column.
It is also strongly recommended that each slab panel has been defined so that none of it’s internal angles are
greater than 180 degrees. L shaped panels fall into this category ‐ these can be avoided if you split the L shape into
two or more rectangular panels.
Overall it is important not to enter into FE meshing of floor slabs with an expectation that everything will always
work first time. Meshing is often an inexact and iterative procedure that takes a little time to get right.
The mesh generator will try to create a mesh for you within the parameters that you set, but it is not always
possible. When a mesh is generated it is up to you to be confident that it is a reasonable mesh for the problem you
are trying to assess. The sections below list the more common issues that seem to arise in relation to mesh
generation. Meshing is also discussed in more detail in the following examples in this chapter, and also in the
examples in the chapter Flat Slab Models.
Validity Checking
Note that the validity checks accessed from the main Building Analysis dialog will issue warnings about slabs that
may cause problems during FE meshing and analysis.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
These types of messages can be very helpful when trying to isolate meshing problems or mesh regularity issues as
discussed in the following sections. Note that messages such as shown above are only warnings, they can be
ignored provided you are happy with the meshing you generate.
If you get errors referring to overlapping slabs and columns (such as shown below) these will significantly affect the
FE models and cannot be ignored.
Mesh Density
Mesh density is strongly influenced by the target Plate Element Size that is provided as input before you press the
Generate Model button. Orion suggests an initial default of 800mm, and for a simple regular layout such as shown
above where the slabs are placed in squares with the supporting columns at the corners this default will be very
reasonable.
The mesh that gets generated will also be strongly influenced by the Mesh Uniformity Factor which is accessed from
the General tab. In the above mesh (which was generated with a mesh unifomity of 100%) 6 plate segments are
produced between the column heads. We recommend that you generally aim for around 6 to 8 plate segments
between column heads.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Mesh Uniformity
If we alter the example above so that there are still 9 panels but they are not all the same size, then meshing with
the default plate element size and keeping the mesh uniformity at 100% results in the mesh shown below.
This is not an ideal mesh. In several places there are only 4 segments between columns.
At this point we can start to adjust the Plate Element Size and/or the Mesh Uniformity Factor to achieve a more
satisfactory solution.
By retaining a uniform mesh and reducing the plate size to achieve the objective of having a minimum of 6 plates
between the closely spaced columns at top right, we must reduce the plate size to 500mm as shown below. This
produces a total of about 1800 plates; the top right is now OK but we are generating more plates than we really
need elsewhere.
If we swap to the other extreme, i.e. the least uniform mesh setting, and then adjust the plate element size; a
reasonable mesh is achieved when the plate size is set at 2000mm as shown below. (Although in this example the
uniformity factor is over‐riding the plate element size setting, so that the maximum size is not being achieved
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
anywhere within the slab.) The total number of plates required in this case is 1678.
The objective is to find a uniformity setting that allows you to reduce the number of plates because you do not
have areas with significantly more plates than are really necessary.
The mesh above is achieved with a plate size of 800mm and a uniformity of 50%. It has 866 plates rather than 1678
and is equally as good for the important bottom left corner panel.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Effect of Holes and Boundaries
Holes can not be placed on a slab boundary, but in the view above some holes have been added close to a
boundary. In the panel containing one hole, the hole is positioned 25mm from the edge of the panel. In the panel
containing two holes, one is 25mm from the edge of the panel, and the two holes are only 25mm apart.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
If we mesh this model with a plate element size of 800mm and the default mesh uniformity factor of 25% the result
is as shown above. The meshing always generates nodes (edges) along panel boundaries and is therefore trying to
create very small plates to work through the small gaps (as shown below).
The meshing shown here is actually useless for all practical purposes. In such circumstances Orion will sometimes
generate coarse but unusable meshes, other times it may generate a message such as shown below.
Either way you need to recognise that either the meshing density/refinement needs to be changed or the model
needs to change. In the view below some small but important changes have been made.
• The slabs have been redefined so that there are no edges near to grid 10, this means there are no small gaps to
deal with between the holes and fictitious edges along that grid line.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
• The two closely spaced holes have been idealised as one larger hole thus avoiding the problem of the small gap
between them. In practice, where there are a cluster of services openings this idealisation is not only helpful
from an analytical point of view, it often proves to be more economic and flexible from a construction point of
view.
This revised model will mesh easily and well as shown above.
Mesh Sensitivity
In general the more elements you use the more precise the answers will be. Considering this in conjunction with
the notes in the previous sections you may conclude that if/when in doubt the best thing to do is just ask for more
plates and create a finer mesh. If you really are in doubt this is not a bad rule to follow, but this is sometimes also
referred to as over meshing and it has a few drawbacks to consider:
• As you add more and more elements you will find that the increased meshing is having less and less effect on
the results – checking sensitivity to meshing changes is standard practice in FE modelling. In essence this is only
a speed problem – meshing, analysis and presentation/interpretation of results all get slower as the number of
plates in a model increases.
• Stress Point Intensification – with highly refined meshes you will begin to expose local effects (very high forces
theoretically applying over very short distances) that are of no practical interest in RC design work. The most
common example of this is the extreme hogging moments that traditional FE analysis tends to expose over
column heads in flat slab models. The principle is however equally applicable to corners adjacent to holes etc.
Reviewing Results – Contours and Strips
The various contouring and strip result options are best explained in the context of worked examples. The
following example covers most of the options, additional notes are included in the examples in the chapter Flat Slab
Models.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Worked Example – Beam and Slab Systems
Introduction
In this example we will work with the reasonably simple floor layout shown above. If you want to work through the
example for yourself, you can load model DOC_Example_04. In order not to destroy the example for someone
else you should then save the model with a new name before proceeding.
One point to notice is that slab angles that have been defined in the angled wing of this model. The wing is angled
at 40 degrees and by defining this angle in the slab information we are essentially designing the angle of the
orthogonal reinforcing system that will be used in this wing. As we will see later this allows us to see much more
relevant contouring details.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
FE Mesh Generation
Start with the model settings as shown above. Later in this example we will look again at the effects of adjusting
the slab stiffness multiplier, in this section we will focus on meshing – ensure the Plate Element Size is set to
1000mm and the Mesh Uniformity Factor is set to 100 then click on the Floor Mesh and Analysis button.
Click on the mesh button and you should see a meshed model formed of 614 plates as shown above – this is NOT a
good mesh. (See previous section).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The mesh generator tries to refine the mesh adjacent to holes with the result that remote panels end up quite
coarsely meshed as shown above. In beam and slab systems a reasonable rule of thumb is that there should be at
least 6 and preferably 8 segments generated along the lengths of the beams. (In flat slab systems a similar principle
can be applied to the stretches between columns.)
There are two ways in which you can change the meshing. If you want to increase the refinement locally around the
holes and corners you can reduce the mesh uniformity factor, or if you want to increase the refinement generally
across the whole slab you can reduce the plate element size.
The the mesh uniformity factor was set to 100, if we reduce this to 25 and re‐mesh the result is as shown below.
This is a big improvement, however there are still a few beams with only 5 and 6 nodes along their length. Although
the total number of plates used has increased to 2488, we might decide yet more plates are required, and ideally
we need a bit more mesh refinement around the openings.
If we keep the mesh uniformity factor at 25 but reduce the plate element size to 600mm we get the mesh shown
below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
This has had the desired effect. It has to be noted again that meshing is not an exact science, if in doubt you should
reduce the plate element size and accept the slightly slower performance associated with the larger model.
Having created an acceptable looking model, you can now exit from the FE preprocessor and the model will be
automatically analysed.
Review of Contouring Options
After analysis you can select the Analysis Post Processing option and begin to review the results. You can select
from a number of contour displays and we will look at each of them now. Each of the following are displayed for the
G+Q*F combination.
Deflection Plots
In any analysis package it is always good practice to look at the deflections – if the deflections do not make sense
the results will not either. In this case the contours look very reasonable. The model has an obvious angled line of
symmetry, and the deflection contours are also symmetrical. The only point that might draw some attention is the
deflections of the primary edge beams. They are not big deflections, but they are more significant than the slab
deflections.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Mx and My Plots
An Mx plot is shown above. Mx and My contours are displayed relative to a single global coordinate system. Since
this model has an angled line of symmetry the contour pattern is not symmetrical.
If you imagine X direction bars running from left to right (horizontally) in the above view then Mx moments are the
moments that these bars will need to be designed to resist (but see also the later notes on design moments
including Wood and Armer adjustments).
Since it is unlikely that reinforcing bars will be positioned horizontally in the angled wing, these contours are of little
value for that region.
M1 and M2 Plots
In the introduction to this example it was noted that a slab angle (the reinforcing angle) has been defined for each
slab panel.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
An M1 plot is essentially an Mx plot where the contours are displayed relative to a local coordinate system for each
slab panel. The local system is defined by the angle of rotation applied to each slab panel. For this model this
means that we can now see a symmetrical contour plot where the contours in each wing are relevant to the
orthogonal reinforcing system that will be used in each wing.
Notice that in any contour plot you can use the mouse pointer to highlight any node (as shown above) and the
precise information about that node is displayed at the foot of the window.
Plots Including Wood and Armer adjustments
Wood and Armer adjustments take plate torsional moments into account to generate adjusted design moments. It
is beyond the scope of this manual to present the derivation of the equations for these adjustments. If detailed
background on this is required you should refer to slab/bridge design texts, or to the original papers:
• Wood, R.H. “The reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a pre‐determined field of moments” as published in
Concrete, 2. February 1968, pp69‐76,
• Armer, G.S.T. “Correspondence” as published in Concrete, 2. August 1968, pp319‐320.
It is noted that the implementation of the adjustments within Orion is limited to orthogonal reinforcing systems.
The adjustments apply differently to hogging and sagging moments, so there are 4 possible contour diagrams that
can be displayed.
An Md1‐bot plot is shown above. This is essentially the M1 sagging (bottom) moments adjusted to account for
plate torsion. The blue zones on the plot are hogging areas, the maximum sagging moment is 5.4, which is almost
identical to the M1 sagging moment (5.3) shown previously.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
An Md1‐top plot is shown below. This is the adjusted M1 hogging (top) moments. The red zones on the plot are
sagging areas, the maximum hogging moment is 8.2, which is a little higher than the M1 hogging moment shown
above.
Since they are based on the M1 and M2 moments these design moment plots are also symmetrical for this floor
system.
The degree to which Wood and Armer adjustments affect the design moments is entirely dependent on the levels
of Mxy (or M12) moments – these can be regarded as twisting moments.
Regular beam and slab systems do not tend to have high twisting moments coincident with peak hogging/sagging
moments and Wood and Armer effects are often of little significance. In this model you can find places where the
effect I more significant.
You can review the Mxy or M12 moment contours as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Corners are always areas where twisting is high. In this model there is also quite a high twist developing over the
beams along the angled line of symmetry. We will see how this affects the strip design moments later in this
example.
Steel Reinforcing Requirement Contours
2 sets of steel area requirement contours are provided:
• As contours – 4 options
As1‐bot, As2‐bot, As1‐top, As2‐top
These steel areas are based on the M1 and M2 moments (i.e. moments that do not include the Wood and
Armer adjustments).
• As(d) contours – 4 options
As(d)1‐bot, As(d)2‐bot, As(d)1‐top, As(d)2‐top
These steel areas are based on the Md1 and Md2 moments (i.e. moments that include the Wood and Armer
adjustments).
It is recommended that unless you have some specific reason for ignoring the Wood and Armer adjustments you
should always work with the As(d) contour results.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Other Contouring Adjustment Options
Before accessing the postprocessor you will have noted the option to apply global adjustment factors to all Positive
(Sagging) or Negative (Hogging) moments. This is not the same as moment redistribution, but it would potentially
allow for redistribution style effects to be introduced.
It should be noted that FE floor models do not include any pattern loading, it is not feasible/logical to automate
pattern loading to generate every possible worst case scenario for every conceivable irregular arrangement and any
size of model. A more realistic use of these adjustments may be to amplify the sagging moments (perhaps 10 to
20%) if you are concerned about allowing for load patterning. This will be discussed further later in this example.
Once you are in the post processor viewing moment contours you will also have noticed a drop down option
relating to Col/Wall Node Interpretation. This has little effect on beam and slab systems and is a little more relevant
to flat slab design. This option is discussed in more detail in the chapter on Flat Slab Models.
Slab Design
The design approach, which involves creating slab strips and then designing based on tabulated code coefficients, is
covered in the training manual. Discussion there also extends to the option of using an FE strip. In this section we
will look at some comparisons between the two approaches and also look a little closer at the FE modelling options
and how these might affect design based on an FE analysis.
For this sort of regular slab it would be considered quite reasonable to use the traditional strip method outlined in
the codes. The importance of setting the slab type correctly is noted again, refer back to the training manual if you
have any doubts on this.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When you design the strip X1 on this basis the design moments are given in the output shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Now we can change the strip to an FE Span Strip by updating the slab strip properties – first check the FE Strip
option under the General tab then choose the appropriate type of FE strip on the FE tab as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Now re‐mesh the model and then go into the FE Postprocessor to review the analysis results.
In the view above the moment diagram is determined along the actual cut line, in the table below you can see the
peak moments captured from the wider area of slab as indicated on the plan view in the background.
We can compare the hogging and sagging moments in the table above with those reported using the coefficient
method earlier. Where we now have a hogging moment of 7.5 kNm, it was 4.6 kNm. Where we now have a
sagging moment of 4.8 kNm, it was 4.5. Before continuing it is worth emphasising that these peak moments
indicated above are very close to or exceed the moments determined by the empirical code approach.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
More interestingly, the peak hogging does not occur at the first internal support, at that support the FE analysis
gives a moment of 4.4kNm, whereas a traditional empirical approach gives 5.6kNm. A traditional idealisation will
assume that beams are rigid lines of support, but this support is deflecting. The deflection diagram for the strip cut
line can also be viewed as shown below.
The relative beam deflections are obvious and in a stiffness analysis this will clearly have an impact on the design
shears and moments. In effect we have built‐in modelling of support flexibility in an FE analysis.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Effects of Adjusting the Beam and Slab Stiffnesses
The empirical code method takes no specific account of support flexibility, we can attempt to emulate this by
adjusting the relative stiffnesses of the beams and the slabs.
Increase the beam stiffness multiplier to 1.5 (arguably to account for the flanges), and decrease the slab stiffness to
0.01. We would not suggest that such a large adjustment be used in practice.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In the view below we can see deflection contours and the moments determined on the strip.
These moments are actually more in line with the moments determined by the empirical approach. The hogging
moments are more regular but the peak is still a good bit higher than determined by the empirical approach, 7.0
kNm as opposed to 5.6 kNm.
The sagging moments are similar but a little lower than determined by the empirical approach, 3.2 kNm as opposed
to 3.4 kNm being the most extreme variation. (Ignoring the angled slab).
The empirical approach is deemed to include for load patterning and moment redistribution. BS8110 also advises
that where the loads are not patterned, there should be a 20% redistribution of support moments with a resulting
increase in sagging moments. In the current model that would mean reducing the 7.0 kNm hogging to 5.7 kNm and
increasing the 4.4 kNm sagging (end span) to about 5.0 kNm, and the 3.2 kNm sagging (internal span) to about 4.4
kNm. This gives very good agreement on the hogging moments, but the sagging moments are higher than
determined by the empirical approach.
Note that for reasons made much clearer in the chapter on Flat Slab Models, the simple principles of redistribution
as traditionally applied to 2D frames do not make sense within the more complex analytical geometry of a 3D FE
model.
Returning to the previous model where the beam and slab stiffnesses might be regarded as more reasonable, we
did not have the extremely high hogging moments to start with. To some degree by actually accounting for the
beam stiffness we have shifted the BMD reducing the hogging moments and increasing the sagging moments.
Would it be safe to reduce the hogging moments further? Should the sagging moments be amplified?
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
It is important that we do not regard the empirical approach as the correct answer, it is one possible method that
comes with documented limitations. When we analyse a complete 3D subframe model we are dealing with a good
analytical model, and it probably does not make sense to start making lots of adjustments to try and make it’s
results fit with those derived from a table of coefficients.
Before accessing the postprocessor you do have the option to apply moment adjustment factors as shown below.
We are unaware of any authoritative texts providing analysis and design guidance relating to FE modelling and
analysis. In considering the requirements to adjust the moments we are probably considering serviceability rather
than safety issues. This is all discussed in greater depth in the chapter on Flat Slab Models. In that chapter we
suggest that you should be very cautious about applying negative adjustment factors of less that 1, it is suggested
that you might apply an adjustment to the positive (sagging) moments of up to around 1.2. Once again, we
emphasise that this is not the same thing as 20% moment redistribution.
If we return to the original beam and slab stiffness settings you can then review the results after introducing a
positive (sagging) moment multiplier as shown above.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In the view below the hogging moments are unchanged, but the sagging moments are factored up by 1.2.
Orion provides the tools to make such adjustments, but in the absence of any authoritative guidance on the subject
we cannot make any definitive suggestions. In this particular example the unaltered moments seem to provide a
reasonable set of design forces, when the option of amplifying the sagging moment is used an even safer set is
generated. If in doubt we can only suggest that you consider making this sort of adjustment.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Effects of Wood and Armer Moment adjustments on a Regular Slab
Refer back to the section Plots Including Wood and Armer adjustments in this chapter for an introduction to this.
Consider the same strip (X1) swap to view the Design Moments, this diagram shows the hogging and sagging
moments after applying Wood and Armer Adjustments. Note that in some places both a hogging and a sagging
moment is generated.
In this case the 1.2 factor is still being applied to positive (sagging) moments. Comparing with the previous diagram
all the forces increase slightly, but the moment at the right hand end where the support beam is angled to the line
of the strip (and to the line of the reinforcement) is more significantly increased.
The adjusted design moments are never (by definition) less than the unadjusted moments. Designing based on
adjusted moments is optional. Comparing the above with the moments calculated based on tabulate code
coefficients, you might feel even more justified in not applying an amplification factor of as much as 1.2 to the
sagging moments.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Reinforcement Design
As you exit from the FE postprocessor a dialog is displayed.
The transfer option needs to be checked in order to pass FE results back to Orion for strip design. The interpolation
option is of little significance in beam and slab work. It is more important in Flat Slab Models and it is therefore
discussed in the chapter Flat Slab Models. You can choose whether or not to use the design moments including
Wood and Armer adjustments.
Back in the main Orion graphical editor, you can select one or several strips. You can then right click and select
options to run a check design on any existing bars, or delete the bars and then update the strip to design new bars.
You could for example design strips based on the empirical code method, and then update the slabs to FE Strips and
check the steel provided on the basis of FE results.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
This may in fact be a very attractive option in many cases. In this example (since minimum steel requirements
dominate) the original steel works for the revised moments from FE.
Merging Beam Results
What does this option do?
This option allows you to choose which results are to be used to design beams, on a beam by beam basis you can
use either:
• The beam results obtained from the building analysis.
• OR, the beam analysis results based on the FE analysis.
In fact, you do not have to choose, you can design all the beams using the results from the building analysis and
then check them all using results from the FE analysis.
When might you use this option?
Examples of when merging might be appropriate include:
1. Floor layouts containing transfer beams. A full discussion of this plus worked examples is presented in a series
of chapters beginning with the Overview of Solution Options for Transfer Levels.
2. Complicated floor layouts where the traditional Yield Line approach to load decomposition is inappropriate,
and/or layouts that include significant cantilever beams or slabs. Note that for this condition you also have the
option of using the FE Load decomposition and then continuing to work with the general building analysis.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
3. In Flat Slab models where there are occasional beams, for example a perimeter edge beam.
Example
To illustrate grillage effects we can continue with DOC_Example_04. In order not to destroy the example for
someone else you should then save the model with a new name before proceeding.
In this example we will focus on the selected beam, 1B17. At the lower end of this beam, its reaction is transferred
to the long horizontal beam (1B2). At the top end the beam frames into a wall.
After running the building analysis you can review the results. Beam 1B17 is supported at one end on beam 1B2.
This beam can be seen to deflect vertically, and rotationally it will act like a pin, because the torsional stiffness
factor used in the analysis was left at the default of 0.01.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
At the other end Beam 1B17 does not deflect as it is supported by a wall.
The shears and moments in this beam resulting from this analysis are shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In addition to the above it is also worth noting the moments in the supporting beam 1B2 as shown below.
Alternative Beam Results can be generated in FE and merged with Building Analysis Results in either of two ways:
1. Using a Plateless model.
2. Using a fully meshed model.
We will look at each of these in turn in the following two examples.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Option 1 – A Plateless Model
Run the FE Floor analysis, use the settings shown below, then click on the mesh generation option to create the
model, then exit and analyse.
1. After analysis click on the option to merge beam results and merge results for all beams.
2. Now review the merged results for beam 1B17.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
There is very good agreement between this result and that obtained by the building analysis. This is to be
expected because in the plateless model the slab does not participate in the analysis. The slab loads are
transferred directly to the supporting members based on the yield line distribution method.
3. You can make similar comparisons on other beams in this model to see how the design forces hardly change.
On Beam 1B2 for instance, the moments are almost identical as shown below.
Checking the Beam Designs
If you had designed all the beams based on the building analysis results you should be able to see a summary table
along the lines shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Having merged all the FE results, you can now carry out a batch check design using the option not to revise the
reinforcing and the utilisation ratios hardly change. The moment in beam 1B18 increases marginally so that its
utilisation ratio is just greater than 1.0, sufficient to register as a fail.
For this reasons illustrated in the Merging Beam Analysis Results section in the chapter Transfer Beams – General
Method, we recommend that having analysed and designed all the beams using one method (e.g. Building
Analysis) you should then run a check design for merged results to find any members that fail. At this point you
should adjust (increase only) the steel in those members interactively until they pass. Then you should find that
you can run a check design for either set of analysis results and everything should pass.
Again, it is worth noting that one of the most compelling reasons for not simply using FE analysis, merging results
and then designing for the merged results is that FE analysis does not deal with patterned load, everything is fully
loaded. It is very worthwhile trying to use the general building analysis and then merge and check for FE results
selectively.
Solution 2 – A Meshed Model
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Run the FE Floor analysis, use the settings shown previously, then click on the mesh generation option to access the
FE Analysis preprocessor. Mesh up the model and you should see a mesh as shown below.
Exit from the preprocessor to analyse the model. After analysis click on the option to merge beam results and
merge results for all beams.
Now review the merged results for beam 1B17.
In this model all the loads are applied to the shells, (no applied load will be displayed on the beam loading
diagram). However, the effects of the loading from both the shells and the supported beam are clear to see on the
shear force diagram.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In this case the design moments are in reasonably close agreement with those determined by both the Plateless
model and the building analysis model. It is important to note that this result is related to the use of the slab
stiffness multiplier that was set to 0.15. If we reset it to 1.0 and run the analysis again, the merged results for the
same beam change as shown below.
The diagrams are similar, but the maximum shear and moments are all lower. This occurs because the slab is
sufficiently stiff that it starts to carry a significant proportion of the load direct to the columns. Other aspects of
this effect relating to slab design were discussed earlier this chapter. In general, if you are designing beams using FE
analysis results with meshed up models, then you need to be very careful that the beam design forces are what you
expect them to be. This can often be achieved by setting the slab stiffnesses to be low or extremely low and then
perhaps ignore slab deflection results.
Checking the Beam Designs
Having merged the FE results for the meshed model the beam design can be checked in the same way as described
for the plateless model.
Merging Column Results
What does this option do?
This option allows you to choose which results are to be used to design columns:
• The column results obtained from the building analysis.
• OR, the column analysis results based on the FE analysis.
When might you use this option?
Examples of when merging might be appropriate include:
1. Floor layouts containing transfer beams. A full discussion of this plus worked examples is presented in a series
of chapters beginning with the Overview of Solution Options for Transfer Levels.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
2. In any model where you have determined a need to merge beam results the possibility of merging column
results is also worth considering.
3. In Flat Slab models. Refer to the chapter Flat Slab Models for more information on this.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 9 : Building Sway and Differential Axial Deformation Effects
Chapter 9 Building Sway and Differential Axial Deformation Effects
Introduction
The following section of the Engineer’s Handbook contains five chapters primarily relating to the topics of Building
Sway and Differential Axial Deformation Effects:
• The Wall Modelling Considerations chapter discusses: alternative analytical idealisations of walls, how model
stiffness can be adjusted in order to force walls to resist all lateral loads, and also how differential axial
deformations can produce sway effects under gravity load.
• In the Sway Deflection Verification chapter a sway deflection comparison is made between Orion and other
analysis software.
• The Overview of Bracing and Sway Sensitivity chapter clarifies the bracing and slenderness classification
procedures for columns and walls for each of the design codes. The subsequent design implications are also
examined.
• The Overview of Differential Axial Deformation Effects in 3D Analysis of Buildings chapter seeks to explain this
3D analysis effect, discusses whether it can be ignored for design purposes and also looks at how it can be
catered for if necessary by designing for a wider envelope of forces.
• The Using Staged Construction Analysis to Emulate ‘Traditional’ Design chapter investigates if it is possible to
use staged construction analysis to deal with differential axial deformation effects.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 10 : Wall Modelling Considerations
Chapter 10 Wall Modelling Considerations
Analytical Idealisations
Orion supports alternative analytical idealisations of walls.
This topic is discussed in detail within a training presentation that is available in PDF format alongside this
document and accessed via the link below:
• Shear Wall Modelling Presentation.pdf
(If the link does not work please browse to find the file name indicated above in the HELP sub‐folder of the Orion
Program Folder)
This presentation is given and discussed in detail during Orion Advanced Training Days.
Deflection
For deflection estimation the above presentation demonstrates that the alternative analytical idealisations yield
very similar results for any given input data.
However, if deflection estimates are to be regarded as meaningful they have to be based on correct input and in
this regard allowances must be considered in two areas:
• Material Properties – Deflections are directly proportional to the Young’s modulus value you define as input,
what is the correct value to use? A short term value may be appropriate for wind loads, but perhaps a long
term value should apply to notional loads?
• Allowance for cracking – gross section properties are used by default, should some adjustment be made to
allow for cracking? (It is understood that many engineers will adjust (reduce) stiffnesses by up to around 50%
to allow for cracking, the ACI code may be referred to for some guidance in this regard.)
Cases where one wall option is Preferable
As is shown in the training presentation, the alternative wall modelling options will generally produce very
compatible results. In more unusual circumstances one option might be considered preferable to another, such
circumstances would include:
Very Short Walls
When walls are short the meshing may need to be very refined in order to generate more than one shell along the
length of the wall.
In such cases the mid‐pier idealisation may be preferable.
Very Long Walls
For very long walls the rigid arms extending from the mid‐pier element are very long and might not be sufficiently
rigid to develop full out of plane effects. A good example of this would be the case where out of plane beams
attach to the extreme ends of a long wall (on one side only). The torsional rigidity of the beam may not allow full
beam end hogging moments to develop.
In such cases the meshed wall idealisation may be preferable.
More importantly however is the fact that a long wall is designed as a single entity. A meshed wall will allow varying
deformations and concentrations of stresses along it's length, but the results are all re‐integrated to create a single
set of design forces on the entire wall length. In cases such as a basement wall that support a series of differently
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
loaded columns and walls along it's length this averaging may not be desirable. Consideration should be given to
breaking such a wall into a series of co‐linear design panels that are then designed seperately (exactly as an
engineer would have traditionally considered strips within such walls)
Extreme Layout Variation between Floors
A good example of layout variation would be the case where a wall is broken into panels around door openings at
each floor level. However, the door positions are moving from one floor to the next. The mid‐pier element of wall
panels in the upper floor are not therefore directly above the mid‐pier elements in the floor below.
• From an overall building analysis point of view this is not a problem.
• Provided that the mid‐pier element of the wall above sits somewhere on the rigid arms of the wall below this is
not a problem.
• In the special case where the mid‐pier element of the wall above sits on a coupling beam over an opening in the
wall below the mid‐pier model will generate some very conservative design forces in the coupling beam. (As is
discussed in relation to transfer beams in the chapter Overview of Solution Options for Transfer Levels and
onwards).
Hence in some specific circumstances the meshed wall idealisation may be considered preferable.
Option to Check Both Ways
In considering the above it is worth re‐emphasising that you always have the option to analyse and design using
one modelling option for walls and then at some stage reanalyse using the other option and run a check design on
all members. Any failures can then be isolated and examined.
Wall Panel Design
The analysis phase described above determines Wall Panel Design Forces. Each wall panel is then independently
designed for these forces. Therefore, when Orion designs a wall panel it is designing a discrete rectangular section.
The design phase is discussed in detail in the chapters Column Design to BS8110 and Wall Design and Detailing
Forcing Walls to resist all lateral loads
Orion uses the flexural stiffness of columns and core walls to resist lateral loading. This means that sway effects
introduce bending in both walls and columns/frames according to relative stiffnesses. Typically walls are much
stiffer and will naturally attract the vast majority of lateral load. However, design codes tend to describe a more
simplistic approach to lateral loading advising that columns may be designed as braced (and hence designed for
gravity loads only) if walls or other bracing systems provide full restraint. In order to satisfy this some engineers
feel it is important to ensure that the walls are designed to resist 100% of the lateral loading. If desired, this may be
achieved in several ways in Orion.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Adjust Model Stiffnesses
In the analysis model options you can adjust the relative stiffnesses of walls/columns/beams. You can make the
walls stiffer and/or you can weaken the columns and beams.
Several Points should be borne in mind if such adjustments are made:
• If changing the wall stiffnesses it is better to apply a factor to the E value since this will apply to both the
meshed and mid‐pier modelling options.
• If you only change the column stiffnesses then you will change the way in which moments develop at beam/
column interfaces. It makes more sense to make relatively equal adjustments to both the beams and the
columns.
• If the above adjustment is made at not too extreme a degree (e.g. reduce beams and column stiffnesses by
factor of 0.5), then the analysis results are probably valid for design of all members.
• If extreme adjustments are made than it is probably safest to use these analysis results only for a cross check on
wall design. Therefore the approach to design might be:
• Make no adjustments, analyse and design all members.
• Make required adjustments, analyse, and check wall designs only.
• Alternatively the check design might be carried out on a copy of the model as described in the section
below for very much the same reasons as stated below.
Pin the Columns
This approach seems to be used in practice but needs to be used with more caution than the stiffness methods
described above. Fictitious pins are assumed and applied at the top and bottom of every column. It is
recommended that a copy of the model is made and that the pins are created in the copy. After analysis design
should be restricted to the wall members only, designing beams and columns for analysis results based on the
existence of assumed pins could result in serious design flaws.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Sway Effects Under Gravity Load
Most models will sway to a small degree when subjected to purely vertical loads. For most models/structures this
effect is likely to be quite insignificant. For some models it could be more significant.
In this section of this chapter we will show that:
1. This effect relates to differential axial compression within the lateral load resisting elements of the structure,
primarily shear and core walls.
2. This effect is always exposed by any analysis of a fully framed structure.
3. This effect can be exposed in Flat Slab models which are stabilised by core walls.
4. There are many reasons why this effect will generally be insignificant in terms of design.
Fully Framed Structures
The structure above is a very simple 10 storey model with a single C‐Shape core which is completely offset to one
side of the building. For the purposes of this example only, all the beams have been pinned at both ends thus
eliminating any frame action which would provide sway stiffness. The structure is therefore completely reliant on
the core walls for stability.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The first point to note is that this is an extreme example. The view below shows how the building sways and twists
under the action of notional loads.
The twisting effect is considerable and the maximum deflections at the top floor actually exceed 1 m. A real
structure cannot be acceptably stabilised by such an eccentric C‐Shape core.
When we consider the dead load case (where only vertical loads are applied) lateral sway is also evident as shown
below.
Why does this sway happen?
In the view above the vertical stress contours are also shown in the core walls – the variation of stress along the
length of the flanges of the C‐shape core is evident.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The design forces in the wall panels at first floor level are shown below. Note that the loads in the flanges 1W1 and
1W3 are higher than in the web 1W2. The average load per meter in these shorter flanges is therefore a lot higher.
Looking at this view it is possible to imagine how the effective centre of loading applied to the C‐shape core is offset
to the right and above it’s centroid (which will be quite close to the centre of rigidity shown in the view above). The
eccentric load causes an unresisted curvature in the core and hence sway develops at the upper floors.
The same effects are evident regardless of whether meshed or mid‐pier idealisations are used.
Before moving on to look at a very similar model but using flat slabs it is worth noting that the total Imposed Load
in the three panels of the above core wall is 626 + 229 + 403 = 1258 kN.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Structures Incorporating Flat Slab Areas
As is noted above the sway effect arises because of the eccentric application of load to a core wall. The magnitude
of the sway is related to the magnitude and point of application of the axial load.
Slab Loads – Yield Line Decomposition
If this building is analysed using yield line decomposition of slab loads then a message is displayed to indicate that
the building analysis has not captured all the applied loads.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
At this stage the analysis results displayed on plan will show no loads in columns and some loads in walls.
The amount of load in the walls will be incorrect, it could be too high or too low, in this case the total Imposed Load
in the three panels of the above core wall is 275 +139 + 276 = 690 kN – a lot less than was derived in the model
where pinned beams were included.
Basically, as is well documented elsewhere, this building analysis is of no value as regards the dead and imposed
load cases. For a flat slab model the design cases for the dead and imposed loads would usually come from the
merged results of an FE chase down.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Slab Loads – FE Decomposition
However, the loading applied to the walls (not the columns) can be corrected by using the FE load decomposition
option (refer to the section Switching between Yield Line and FE load Decomposition in the chapter Beam Loads
and Load Decomposition Methods for more information on this option). After making this change the loads in the
walls change as shown below.
The total Imposed Load in the three panels of the above core wall is now 768 – 11+ 695 = 1452 kN. As a total this is
not too dissimilar to the 1258 kN total given for the model that included the pinned beams, slab continuity effects
in the FE analysis mean that more load is attracted to the core in this case. This load is also more eccentric with the
result that tension develops in the web (for this extreme example.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Once again the sway of the structure for the gravity load case is evident in the analysis postprocessor view and the
variation of stress along the length of the flanges of the C‐shape core is also evident.
In this example the maximum sway that is developing is 65 mm, the discussion below should put this in some
context.
Discussion
Load Eccentricity
As noted at the outset, the model used above is an extreme example. In order to generate the most extreme offset
loading within the C‐shape core it is positioned along on edge of the model. In this position this single core cannot
stabilise the structure effectively. The sway under notional load cases exceeds 1000 mm. This structure is not
something that would be built.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Where structures are stabilised by a single core, the core is normally positioned more centrally and will tend to
attract more uniform loading.
If the example is adjusted as shown above so that the core attracts load from all sides then the sway under gravity
load only drops from 65 to 13 mm (everything else being equal). Even so this structure still undergoes very
significant sway due to notional loads and would again probably not be something that would actually be
constructed. (The open C‐Shape of the core is very susceptible to twist.)
Construction and Creep Effects
In the event that sway induced by gravity loads seems significant and some estimation of the actual displacement is
required then some thought should be given to the sequence of construction and to subsequent creep effects.
The sway is occurring as a result of differential axial deformation within the walls. This axial deformation is a
combination of immediate deformations each time a new floor is supported and ongoing creep deformations. Both
of these effects are time dependent. When a floor load is added the concrete in the walls that support the floor
will be younger in the floor immediately below and progressively older at lower floors. The younger concrete will
see a greater immediate deformation and a greater long term creep deformation as a result of any applied load. A
detailed discussion of this is beyond the current scope of this handbook, but it is worth noting that there would be
a good deal of common background with the discussion of flat slab deflections accessed via the chapter on Flat Slab
Models.
A very sophisticated assessment of this effect would take account of construction sequencing and time dependent
effects. In such circumstances the result needs to be assessed for sensitivity to variations in the assumptions on
which they are based. To be fully accurate this analysis would need to take account of the fact that some of the
deflection would be constructed out as the walls are constructed as vertical as is practical during construction.
In fact the result achieved by any such complex analysis will lie somewhere between two extremes that might be
predicted more readily be a simple linear static analysis using different E (Young’s Modulus) values for the concrete.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
A short term E value might be used to estimate a minimum value for the total deflection.
In the case of walls cracking effects can probably be discounted so only additional creep effects need to be
considered. It is likely that the net effect of creep will be something less than a doubling of instantaneous
deflection. Hence the value determined above could be doubled, or another analysis could be made with E set to
half of the short term value.
Note Where flat slab models are being considered it is common practice to use long term values of E

set at around ¼ of the short term value. When this has been done deflection estimates of sway
arising from the building analysis are likely to be too high, perhaps by a factor of 2 based on
the suggestions above.
Discrete Cores
Where structures have discrete cores or numerous discrete walls providing stability the effects will often
counteract each other.
In the above view the model is mirrored so that there are two C‐shape cores. This model does not sway at all in the
X direction under gravity load and the vertical load contours indicate relatively uniform stresses within the cores.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In this case the two cores lean against each other, the diaphragms at each floor stop any curvature from
developing. The axial loads in the wall panels at first floor level are much more uniform as shown below.
The total Imposed Load in the three panels of the above core wall is now 435 + 663+ 324 = 1422 kN. On a panel by
panel basis these are very different forces than were given by the un‐mirrored model, but the total for the 3 panels
is very similar to the 1452 kN given previously. Note that the major axis moments in the wall panels are also much
reduced.
Results based on an FE Chase Down
For most models engineers will be happy to use the panel design forces merged from an FE analysis chase down. In
this case the results for this core wall would then be as shown below:
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Once again the distribution of forces in the 3 wall panels is different, but the total Imposed Load is very similar at
561 + 391+ 473 = 1425 kN. The FE Chase down method does not deal with sway introduced by differential axial
compression in the core walls over the full height of the building. It does however introduce more minor axis
bending effects where the walls interact with the slabs.
For many walls supporting flat slab floors the minor axis bending can be more significant in the panel design than
variations in axial load and major axis moment that may be introduced by sway effects.
For this simple 10 storey example building, despite the fact that the sway effects have been forced to be
unrealistically extreme, the walls only require nominal reinforcement regardless of which set of design forces their
design is based on.
It is suggested that for flat slab models it is important to have always designed the walls for the loads generated
based on an FE chase down. You then have the option of cross checking these designs for the results generated by
a building analysis where wall loading has been determined using FE decomposition at each floor.
Closing Summary
In this section we have been discussing Sway Effects Under Gravity Loads, it is important to emphasise that this
relates entirely to sway that is generated in the presence of purely vertical applied loads.
The possibility of sway developing due to differential axial shortening is something that would have been routinely
ignored in hand calculations by most engineers looking at most structures.
This has nothing to do with notional loads which are applied separately and will always be designed for provided
you have included them in your design combinations.
For framed models in Orion the effect is always included / exposed by the 3D analysis.
For flat slab models the effect will not be exposed by an FE chase down but can be exposed if desired. It is
emphasised however that we recommend walls are designed for the loads from an FE chase down and then a
subsequent check design can be made for building sway effects if desired. For many reasons noted within the text
of this section it is anticipated that this check will only produce more critical design in tall buildings and/or quite
extreme examples.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 11 : Sway Deflection Verification
Chapter 11 Sway Deflection Verification
Introduction
In order to produce a sway deflection comparison against other analysis software, a 20 storey building is analysed
in Orion using both mid‐pier and meshed idealisations of walls. (The Example 20 Storey Building described in the
later chapter on Differential Axial Deformation Effects is used for this purpose.)
The results for lateral load cases are then compared against other analysis packages.
Example Model:
Comparison of Orion's alternative wall modelling options
The model is initially analysed in Orion using a mid‐pier idealisation of the wall panels. The analysis is then repeated
using the alternative meshed FE shell model idealisation.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Shown below is a comparison of the two sets of results.
Mid‐Pier Wall Meshed Wall Differenc
Model Model e
Applied dead load 39187 39187
Decomposed dead load 39187 39187
Dead load reaction 39187 39187
Applied live load 11985 11985
Decomposed live load 11985 11985
Live load reaction 11985 11985
Wind X max (mm) 101.6 100.1 ‐1.5%
Wind X min (mm) 101.3 99.6 ‐1.5%
Wind X max resultant (mm) 101.8 100.3 ‐1.5%
Wind Y max (mm) 79.9 76.0 ‐4.9%
Wind Y min (mm) 35.9 35.8 0
Wind Y max resultant (mm) 81.7 77.7 ‐4.9%
It can be seen from the above that both midpier and meshed FE shell wall modelling options work equally well.
Compare analysis results using other software
Orion models can be exported to other analysis software such as S‐Frame or SAP. The models created for this
example were exported and the results for both the mid‐pier and meshed idealisations of walls are compared in the
tables below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Mid‐Pier Wall Model
Orion S‐Frame SAP
Wind X max (mm) 101.6 101.6 101.6
Wind X min (mm) 101.3 101.4 101.3
Wind X max resultant (mm) 101.8 101.7
Wind Y max (mm) 79.9 79.9 79.9
Wind Y min (mm) 35.9 35.9 35.9
Wind Y max resultant (mm) 81.7 82.5
Meshed Wall Model
Orion S‐Frame SAP ETABS*
Wind X max (mm) 100.1 100.2 100.1 104.3
Wind X min (mm) 99.6 100.0 99.9
Wind X max resultant (mm) 100.3 100.3
Wind Y max (mm) 76.0 76.2 75.9 79.9
Wind Y min (mm) 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.7
Wind Y max resultant (mm) 77.7 78.4
* — For the Etabs comparison the model was constructed by a 3rd party. In this model the default wall
idealisation was not used, the walls were meshed more finely. CSC do not assume responsibility for the
accuracy of this model.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 12 : Overview of Bracing and Sway Sensitivity
Chapter 12 Overview of Bracing and Sway Sensitivity
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the bracing and slenderness classification procedures for columns and walls
for each of the design codes. The subsequent design implications are also examined.
Automatic Assessment of Sway Sensitivity
Sway sensitivity is automatically determined in Orion when the design code is set to EC2.
For other codes as discussed below, an assessment of sway sensitivity can also be made, however it should be
noted that this is based on analytical results and the recommendations of the ACI code.
Whenever sway sensitivity is assessed automatically you are advised to be aware of the limitations that apply, these
can be viewed by clicking the ‘Limitations’ button on the Building Analysis/ Reports tab.
User Defined Bracing
In both the BS8110 code and also CP65 there are no provisions for assessing sway sensitivity by analytical methods.
Therefore, when using BS8110 or CP65 you need to check the option for User Defined Bracing for Columns and
Walls and then apply the condition (braced or unbraced) that you deem appropriate for the building.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
If you do not check this option then Orion will make an assessment of sway sensitivity based on analytical results
and the recommendations of the ACI code.
Note however that this assessment is deflection dependent and that the ACI code gives guidance on appropriate
adjustments to section/material properties to be used in the building analysis for the purposes of this assessment.
Such adjustments will increase the deflection value used in the checks.
Note that the check can result in different classifications for different storeys which is not a condition that is
recognised by BS8110. We continue to advise that this assessment is used cautiously and that when the
appropriate overall condition is determined that this should be applied as a user‐defined classification (in
accordance with BS8110).
Classification Requirements of each code
The classification procedures in each of the codes are as follows:
BS8110 (similarly CP65 and HK‐2004)
Bracing Classification — In BS8110 columns (and walls in minor axis direction) are considered as braced if lateral
stability is provided (predominantly) by walls or other stiffer elements. This classification remains a matter of
engineering judgement.
Global P‐Delta Effects — it is an inherent assumption in the above that walls provide sufficient lateral stiffness that
global sway of the building is small and hence "Big" P‐delta effects can be ignored in braced structures. For
un‐braced structures there is no clear statement on whether or not global P‐Delta is also considered ignorable or is
simply considered to be adequately catered for in the amplification of design moments noted below.
Slenderness Classification — this is based on the effective length. In braced structures effective lengths are < 1
and in un‐braced structures effective lengths are > 1. It is considerably more likely that a member gets classified as
slender when it has been classified as un‐braced.
Short (Non‐Slender) Members will see no amplification of moment at all, even if they are un‐braced.
Slender Members (Members susceptible to P‐Delta effects)
• Braced‐Slender Elements ‐ additional moments are calculated based on effective length and are considered to
be a maximum at around mid height. These moments are not added to the highest end moment so this may or
may not end up being a critical design condition. This additional moment is clearly intended to cater for "little"
P‐delta effects (strut buckling)
• UnBraced‐Slender Elements ‐ additional moments are calculated based on effective length (which is longer and
hence additional moments will be greater), and are considered to be a maximum at the member ends. The
additional moment is added to the highest end moment so this will always end up being a critical design
condition.
It is assumed that this amplification of the critical design condition is intended to cater for both big and little
P‐delta effects.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The advantage of the above procedure is that moment amplification in each column is related only to the
classification and slenderness of that column. Where columns are unbraced this is not entirely logical and cl3.8.3.8
does provide an option where the average slenderness effect for an entire unbraced storey level can be used for all
members at that level. Typically this would mean that members which are un‐braced but not slender add to an
average stiffening effect and so the design should be less conservative. This option is not applied in Orion because
the design procedure would become highly iterative (the design of every column would affect the design of every
other column at an un‐braced level and moment amplification would need to be introduced to non‐slender
members).
ACI 318‐02
When the design code is set to BS8110, CP65 or HK‐2004; if you uncheck “User Defined Bracing for Columns and
Walls”, a facility is made available for assessing the susceptibility of individual storeys to P‐Delta effects. This uses
the ACI method of classification during the building analysis.
Bracing Classification — using the ACI approach each storey level within a building is classified as sway or
non‐sway. The code also provides a method allowing analytical assessment of this classification based on
deflections arising from a linear analysis of the structure.
Global P‐Delta Effects — when a storey is classified as "non‐sway" then it can be assumed that global P‐Delta
effects are small enough to be ignored at that level. When a storey is classified as "sway" then the frame analysis
results need to be amplified in some way, options given are:
• A second order analysis (which would inevitably affect all members in the structure)
• Approximate moment magnification methods (cl.10.13.2 appears to indicate that this moment amplification
only needs to be applied to the slender members at each floor level (similar to BS8110) is this logical? ‐ or
should this amplify the sway moments in all columns and walls on a level by level basis?)
Slenderness Classification — this is based on the effective length. At "Non‐sway" levels effective lengths are < 1
and at "sway" levels effective lengths are > 1. It is considerably more likely that a member gets classified as slender
when it exists at a "sway" level.
Short (Non‐Slender) Members will see no amplification of moment at all even if they are at "Sway" levels.
• Slender Elements at Non‐Sway Levels ‐ additional moments are calculated based on effective length and are
considered to be a maximum at around mid height. These moments are not added to the highest end moment
so this may or may not end up being a critical design condition.
In essence the approach here is identical to that used for braced slender members in BS8110.
• Elements at Sway Levels ‐ as noted above the end moments of all members may be amplified to account for
Global P‐Delta effects. If a member at such a level is classified as slender, the calculation of the magnified
moment is not based on the effective length of each individual member, moment magnifiers are based either
on the stability index for the floor (cl.10.13.4.2) or an assessment of the average buckling capacity of all
members at the floor (cl.10.13.4.3 ‐ similar to the optional method in BS8110).
The additional moment is added to the highest end moment so this will always end up being a critical design
condition.
Additional check (cl.10.13.5) ‐ having amplified the end moments there is a requirement to check that
intermediate slenderness effects (using effective length = 1.0L) are not more critical.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
While the method of moment amplification is different for slender members at sway levels, the general principles
of moment amplification are the same in BS8110 and ACI and the terms used for classification are interchangeable:
• BS8110 Braced = ACI Non‐Sway
• BS8110 Un‐Braced = ACI Sway
The ACI has the advantage that the classification is not a matter of engineering judgement and also that it
introduces the flexibility to mix both braced and un‐braced classifications within one structure.
The ACI amplifications are applied only to lateral load cases ‐ this does not address the fact that sway will occur as a
result of vertical loads applied to any unsymmetrical structure and hence ignores the possibility that significant
P‐delta effects could accrue due to this aspect of sway. However, for the majority of "building" type structures this
simplification/assumption is likely to be acceptable.
There does seem to be a question mark relating to the ACI approach for slender columns. If the sway moment
amplification is made using the stability index then should the column be taken into design as a braced column
using an effective length = 1.0 (because the unbraced (global P‐Delta) aspect of slenderness has already been
allowed for?). This seems much less conservative than the suggested implementation procedure for EC2 discussed
below.
EC2
In EC2 similar terminologies are used but the meanings are different:
• Cl 5.8.1 ‐ Introduces concept of braced and bracing members.
• Cl 5.8.2 ‐ Second Order Effects ‐ this clause distinguishes between global effects (applying to the whole
structure) and isolated member effects (slenderness).
Bracing Classification — Bracing members are the members which are assumed to provide the lateral stability of
the structure. Columns and walls that are not “bracing members” are classified as “braced”. Unfortunately there is
an element of engineering discretion involved in this classification which will be discussed later.
Global P‐Delta Effects — there is some guidance on determining if these effects can be ignored (For the purposes
of this discussion we will classify structures in which global P‐Delta effects cannot be ignored as "sway sensitive").
Cl 5.8.3.3 (1) gives a simple equation that is only applicable in limited circumstances and is actually also difficult to
apply. Initial calculations using this equation have suggested that it would be too conservative resulting in too
many structures being classified as sway sensitive.
Annex H provides slightly more general guidance. In order to automate the Annex H classification in Orion, the
approach has been modified to become similar in principal to the ACI classification method. It is noted that a single
classification gets applied to the entire sway resisting structure (the bracing members). If it is determined that
global P‐Delta effects cannot be ignored (the structure is sway sensitive) then the approach becomes a user driven
procedure, in which the sway loads are amplified in accordance with Annex H. This is a relatively simple procedure
applied as follows:
1. View the sway sensitivity report to obtain the suggested load amplification factors.
2. Apply this amplification to the existing load combination factors.
3. Re‐analyse using the option to over‐ride further sway sensitivity assessment and design the structure as if it is
not sway sensitive (because the global P‐Delta effects are now catered for).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Tests have indicated that the sway sensitivity assessment procedure described above results in a non‐sway
classification for the vast majority of structures .
Note Although the classification applies to the bracing members, it is impossible to isolate these
when analysing the structure, so P‐delta forces (introduced by load amplification or P‐delta
analysis) will accrue in all members (braced or bracing, short or slender).
Slenderness Classification — this is based on the effective length. For braced members effective lengths are < 1
and for bracing members effective lengths are > 1. It is considerably more likely that a member gets classified as
slender when it has been classified as a bracing member.
Short (Non‐Slender) Members:
• As noted above, if these members exist in a sway sensitive frame then there may have been some amplification
of the design forces introduced during the general analysis procedure.
• no other amplification of moments is then applied.
• Slender Braced Members ‐ additional moments are calculated based on effective length and are considered to
be a maximum at around mid height. These moments are not added to the highest end moment so this may or
may not end up being a critical design condition.
In essence the approach here is identical to that used for braced slender members in BS8110 and ACI.
• Slender Bracing Members ‐ as in BS8110 ‐ additional moments are calculated based on effective length (which is
longer and hence additional moments will be greater). Un‐like BS8110 the additional moment does not have to
be added to the highest end moment (because the end moment is already amplified if the structure is sway
sensitive). In EC2 additional moments in slender members are introduced in the same way regardless of
whether or not the member exists in a sway sensitive frame.
In summary ‐ it seems EC2 maintains a distinction between global P‐delta effects and local slenderness effects
which potentially results in a 2 stage amplification of moments. Once the sway sensitivity is assessed the global
P‐Delta effects are introduced in the analysis results as necessary. For the local slenderness effects the general
principles of moment amplification in EC2 are very similar to those applied in BS8110:
• EC2 Braced = BS8110 Braced
• EC2 Bracing = BS8110 Un‐Braced (but we would expect that the EC2 amplification might be lower since the
BS8110 amplification at this point mixes both global and local effects whilst in EC2 any global effects would
already have been introduced).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Implementation of EC2 Classification in Orion
Setting the Braced/Bracing Members
EC2 requires the user to distinguish between the braced and the bracing members of a structure. This can be
specified on the Lateral Drift tab of Building Parameters. Note this setting has nothing to do with assessing sway
sensitivity which is dealt with separately.
The purpose is to identify Bracing Members in each Global Direction (The member types that contribute to lateral
stability of the building). The default setting is as shown above, (columns considered to be braced; walls considered
to be braced about their minor axis, but to provide bracing to the structure about their major axis).
Assessment of Sway Sensitivity
Most of the guidance surrounding EC2 suggests/assumes that most buildings will be classified as non‐sway.
Essentially the expectation is that the assumption made in BS8110 design, that any building stabilised by shear/
core walls is non‐sway, will prove to be correct.
Whether this proves to be true is somewhat irrelevant, the fact is that sway sensitivity classification has to be made
and the Eurocode provides three options for doing this:
1. Use cl 5.8.3.3 (eq5.18)
2. Use guidance from Annex H
3. Do a P‐Delta analysis and check that the change in results is less than 10% (cl 5.8.2), if true than you can revert
to linear elastic analysis.
Note The Annex H guidance has been adopted for the first Eurocode release of Orion.
If the structure is classified as sway sensitive then there are two options for dealing with this:
1. Annex H ‐ Application of increased horizontal forces.
2. Do a P‐Delta Analysis
In fact there is a third option which might be applied when an engineer discovers a building is sway‐sensitive ‐ they
may find a way to add more shear walls and change the classification!
Initially the P‐delta option may seem attractive but it must be recognised that EC2 is very clear on the fact that
realistic member properties accounting for creep and cracking must be used and the calculation of these properties
becomes a unique procedure for every member.
Note For sway sensitive structures, the Annex H guidance has been adopted for the first Eurocode
version of Orion.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Worked Example for a Sway Sensitive EC2 Structure
A model is constructed as shown above with two 3m wall panels providing stability in each direction.
Floor to floor ht= 3.0 m
Wall Length / Width= 3m / 0.2m
Concrete Grade= C30/37
G= 7 kN/m2 (total including walls)
Q= 2.5 kN/m2
Beams are provided for load collection only ‐ they are pinned at both ends in order that lateral loads are focussed in
the shear walls.
Model Analysis Properties
The notes with eq H.8 indicate that cl 5.8.7.2 should be referred to ‐ the stiffness of the members used in the
analysis leading to the classification must be adjusted and Cl 5.8.7.2 is referred to for the adjustment.
Cl 5.8.7.2 gives a procedure for calculation of Nominal Stiffness of compression members. Rigorous use of this
clause would require iteration since the adjusted properties are member specific (load and reinforcement and even
direction dependent).
Simplified alternatives are given, the simplest of which still involves the use of theta‐ef (the "Effective Creep Ratio")
which remains a member specific calculation.
Note For the first Orion Eurocode version these adjustments are left entirely to the user.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Referring to eq 5.26, if we assume theta‐ef is around 1.5 then the suggested approximate stiffness adjustment can
be calculated:
• Kc = 0.3 / (1 + 0.5*theta‐ef) = approx 0.175
For the beams adjustments must be made to allow for creep and cracking ‐ assume:
• I‐cracked = 0.5 I‐conc
• (eqn5.25) Ecd‐eff = Ecd / (1 + theta‐ef) = Ecd / 2.5
• Therefore total adjustment to EI = 0.5/2.5 = 0.2.
Overall it seems that initial adjustments might be as low as 0.15 to 0.2 EI for all members. To put this in perspective
consider the slightly more concise advice given in the ACI. ACI suggests reducing stiffness (EI) by a factor of 0.35 (or
0.7 if the members can be shown to be uncracked). It is also noted that the 0.35 factor should be further reduced if
sustained lateral loads are applied, it seems logical that notional loads should be regarded as sustained lateral
loads. Therefore, a 0.2 adjustment factor may prove to be a little over conservative, but it is not wildly different to
the ACI advice.
Consider also that ACI classifies a building as sway sensitive when Q > 5% while EC2 allows this to increase to 10% ‐
therefore, if the EC2 adjustment factor is around 0.175 compared to ACI factor of 0.35, then the classifications of
the buildings would be almost identical.
ACI Classification (for comparison)
Member Properties are adjusted before analysis as shown above. Note that the recommended column and beam
adjustment is 0.7 and for cracked walls it is 0.35.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The report shows the structure is classified as sway‐sensitive at all but the lowest floor level.
In the ACI only 5% second order effects are assumed to be ignorable. Q is the measure of this and at this point it is
interesting to note that although Q is only marginally smaller than 0.05 at the lowest level, it becomes quite
significantly greater at the top level.
In fact, if we reduce this to a 4 storey building then the report below shows that the structure is still classified as
sway‐sensitive at the upper levels.
Note As shown above, P‐Delta effects can be proportionally higher at upper levels .
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
EC2 Classification to Annex H
Based on the discussion in Model Analysis Properties, member properties are adjusted before analysis as shown
above. Note that although we are using 0.17, you may decide on a higher or lower value based on your engineering
judgement.
The report shows that the 5 storey structure is classified as sway‐sensitive at all floor levels.
In EC2 10% second order effects are assumed to be ignorable. Q is the measure of this and so the actual check is
that if Q > 0.1 then the classification is sway‐sensitive. For the figures above we can see this is true at all levels.
It is noted that although Q is only marginally greater than 0.1 at the lowest level, it becomes quite significantly
greater at the top level.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In fact, if we reduce this to a 4 storey building then the report below shows that although Q becomes less that 0.1
at the lowest level, the structure is still classified as sway‐sensitive at the upper levels.
Although the reduced section properties together with the increased ignorable P‐Delta amplification limit means
that the threshold for sway‐sensitive/non‐sway classification is very similar for the two codes, the amplification
factors that apply to buildings that are classed sway sensitive are bigger (double) for EC2.
EC2 does not seem to recognise the concept that a building can have different sway sensitivity at different levels, a
single classification and amplification factor is applied to the whole building. This requirement is catered for in the
report by including an extra line for ‘All‘ storeys. In the above 4 storey example the Q value calculated for “All”
storeys is 0.1497 (therefore sway sensitive).
Total deflection = 5.99mm
Total Axial Load (F‐V.Ed)= 30349
Total Shear Load (F‐H.Ed)= 101.2
Total height = 12m
Q = 1.5 (30349 * 0.00599) / (101.2 *12) = 0.1497 > 0.1 (therefore sway sensitive).
Application of Load Amplification Factors
Provided the model is classified as non‐sway no further adjustments are required ‐ the member design is
performed using the existing load combinations and factors.
If (as in this case) the model is classified as sway‐sensitive, the second‐order effects must be accounted for in the
design. As previously stated, the code provides two options for achieving this:
• Annex H ‐ Application of increased horizontal forces.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
• Do a P‐Delta Analysis
In the current version of Orion the former approach is adopted ‐ when the model is classified as sway‐sensitive a
load amplification factor is automatically applied to the existing design load combinations.
The amplification factor, Delta‐s, is calculated from the Q value for “All” storeys as follows:
Delta‐s = FH,Ed / FH,0Ed = 1 / (1‐Q)
In the original 5 storey example Q = 0.271. Hence the amplification factor displayed on the Horizontal Drift
Classification Report is
1/(1‐0.271) = 1.372.
It is possible to over‐ride this value if required and enter an amplification factor based on your own engineering
judgement. To do this, re‐display the Building Parameters, then from the Lateral Drift tab check the box to apply the
‘User‐defined’ Sway Amplification Coefficient. You can then over‐ride the automatically calculated value in one or
both directions.
If you have applied user‐defined sway amplification co‐efficients, it is not necessary to re‐analyse the building
before the members are designed.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 13 : Overview of Differential Axial Deformation Effects in 3D Analysis of Buildings
Chapter 13 Overview of Differential Axial Deformation Effects in 3D Analysis
of Buildings
Introduction
Differential axial deformation will occur in the 3D analysis of any typical building frame. This deformation can
significantly affect beam bending moments. For the purposes of discussion the effect is referred to as a
"Differential Axial Deformation Effect" (DADE).
During any analysis members subject to compression will shorten. In a concrete frame columns and walls under
compression will both shorten. Highly stressed members will shorten by greater amounts than lower stressed
members. Where two adjacent members shorten by a different amount there will be an effect (DADE) introduced
in any members that attach to both the shortening members.
Example:
Central column shortening by more than external columns introducing bending effects in connecting beams.
CSC have previously sought to raise engineers awareness of this and other 3D analysis effects by illustrating them in
seminars held around the world. This particular effect is known and studied by academia, one reference that
provides a good overview is:
Effects of Axial Shortening of Columns on Design and Construction of Tall Reinforced Concrete Buildings
By M.T.R. Jayasinghe and W.M.V.P.K. Jayasena
Available to download from the ASCE Research Library (http://www.ascelibrary.org)
Focusing on DADE, the key points of the discussion in these notes are:
• Traditional methods of idealising sub‐sections of structures for design purposes inherently completely ignore
this effect. However, the existing building stock which is largely designed in this way appears serviceable, it
seems that ignoring DADE has not caused any significant problems.
• An analysis of a complete 3D model of a structure will inherently introduce this effect.
• Designers with experience in the traditional method look at the analysis results of a full 3D analysis and will
quite rightly question the design forces that are displayed.
• There is a demand to use 3D analysis but at the same time find a way to achieve member design forces that are
reasonably close to the forces that would always have been used. These notes demonstrate methods of
achieving this.
• Checks are required to establish whether the method used has had an impact on sway deflections. If it does
not then potentially designers can stop at this point on the basis that the traditional design approach has been
reasonably emulated.
• Potentially engineers will also want to consider that DADE should not be completely ignored. These notes show
how a second analysis run could be made so that the initial design can be checked and strengthened as
necessary. In essence this means that the structure ends up being designed for a wider envelope of design
conditions (forces), clearly this must be a conservative approach.
• Concerns have been expressed that designing for this envelope could be uneconomic. For an example model it
is shown that the additional reinforcement associated with this conservative approach is quite nominal.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
It is important to re‐emphasise that although this discussion is in relation to Orion, the effect under discussion will
occur in any analysis software. Equally, most of the suggested strategies for dealing with this effect could be
applied in other software.
Finally, the possibility that staged construction analysis will somehow easily deal with this issue is often raised. This
point is covered in the closing discussion the key points being that:
• Staged Construction is not a simple analysis technique.
• It does not generate results that emulate traditional design (i.e. DADE is not completely eliminated)
• If it is not used with a reasonable degree of care and understanding then a staged construction analysis can be
a sophisticated and time consuming way of getting dubious answers.
Opening Discussion
In these notes we will establish some traditional sub‐frame results for beams at the 20th floor of a building and
then look at how closely these results can be emulated using full 3D analysis. Several general discussion topics
should be borne in mind as the results are compared.
Traditional practice for the analysis and design of multi‐storey concrete frames has involved a significant degree of
idealisation of the structure:
• Lateral load is often assumed to be exclusively resisted by a selected subset of members:
• Special models are constructed to determine the member forces which develop when lateral loads are
applied.
• It is quite normal to ignore the sway that can be introduced when pure gravity load is applied to a
non‐symmetrical structure.
• For the remaining structure only gravity forces are considered:
• Column and beam design is based on "sub‐frame" analysis.
• Typically sub‐frame support points are assumed to provide rigid vertical support, the possibility of elastic
deformation of the support is ignored.
• The result is that designs would be the same for the beams on the 20th floor as on the 1st floor.
We present the results from the traditional analysis as a target "baseline" result. This should not be confused with
being a "correct" result. A few thoughts on this:
• A Quote:
"Engineering (and some may think FE practice also) is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly
understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyse, so as to withstand forces we cannot properly
assess, this in such a way the public and (hopefully) the customer has no reason to suspect the extent of
our ignorance."
Structural Engineering Modelling and Analysis,
by Arthur T. Murphy
The Structural Engineer ‐ 3rd Feb. 2004
• If a structure were loaded to full design load at all levels and the actual forces that developed in the members
were measured what degree of variation with the forces assumed at design stage would be found to exist?
• If two engineers were independently given the same building frame and design brief would they both end up
designing every element for exactly the same forces?
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Basically Engineers have traditionally idealised a very complex problem, applied safety factors, and established
design forces which have been used successfully for many years. This is a good result, but should not be regarded
as some sort of scientifically accurate result.
Now there is a trend towards full 3 dimensional modelling and analysis of buildings. Creating a single analysis
model for an entire building will inevitably have the following effects:
• Lateral load is shared throughout the structure according to relative stiffness:
• Where robust core walls and shear walls exist these provide the vast majority of the resistance to these loads.
• The sway that occurs when pure gravity load is applied to any non‐symmetrical structure will naturally be
introduced.
• For the structure which predominantly resists gravity forces:
• Elastic shortening of compression members (columns and walls) will occur.
• As a result the analysis results for beams on the 20th floor will not be the same as those on the 1st floor.
It is worth taking note of all of the above differences before we focus more specifically on sub‐frame modelling and
the inclusion/exclusion of DADE. The approach used is aimed at largely eliminating DADE, it does not eliminate
natural sway effects. It must be acknowledged that sway effects will cause some unavoidable differences in the
comparisons.
There is no intention to suggest that the new 3D analysis model now creates scientifically accurate results, a great
many simplifications, assumptions, etc. remain. The overall objective of the above discussion is to encourage
consideration of the comparisons in these notes from an engineering standpoint.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Example 20 Storey Building
Example Model:
Storey Height
Fdn to G/F 0.5m
G/F to 1/F 4.0m
1/F to Roof 3.05m per storey
Wall Thickness (mm)
Fdn to 10/F 10/F to Roof
Shear Wall 300 225
Core Wall 350 250
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Column Size (mm)
C1 750 x 1250 (at Fdn to 1/F only)
C2 750 x 1250 (at Fdn to 1/F only)
C3 500 x 1500 400 x 1500
C4 500 x 1500 400 x 1500
C5 500 x 1500 400 x 1500
C6 500 x 1500 400 x 1500
Beam Size (mm)
B1 & B2 400 x750 300 x500
B3 & B4 400 x750 400 x500
B5 & B6 450 x700 300 x 450
B7, B8 & B9 350 x650 250 x 500
Slab Thickness
125mm
Height of Openings
All openings to be 2300mm from floor level including the opening at G/F between columns C1 and C2.
In a separate exercise it has been demonstrated that sway results for this model are in excellent agreement with
results achieved using other software. Refer to the next chapter, Sway Deflection Verification for details.
Traditional Analysis Results
As already discussed a 'traditional' design will historically have been based on the results of a series of discrete 2D
subframe analyses:
• Sub‐frame analyses are carried out at each floor from top down (assuming fixed supports)
• Deflection compatibility between sub‐models is ignored.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
• Column and wall forces are established by summing up the axial loads determined in each of the separate
analyses. Or, in many cases the axial loads are determined by simply calculating an assumed supported floor
area at each floor.
Both 2D and 3D subframe models can be created and analysed in Orion if required. To emulate the result that
would be achieved by subframe analyses in both directions the top storey is extracted and analysed as a single floor
model.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The analysis results for this 3D subframe are shown below (mid‐pier wall idealisation has been used).
To enable comparisons to be made with other approaches, the bending moment diagram can be plotted for the
highlighted beams.
We shall consider this our "baseline" answer against which other approaches can be benchmarked.
Once again it is important to note the comments made in the opening discussion about the assumptions inherent
in the above result. It is a target baseline, it should not be regarded as some sort of perfectly correct result.
Emulating the Traditional Approach in Orion
Orion has two basic analysis methods:
• Sub‐Floor Analysis
Referred to in Orion as FE Chasedown analysis.
• Building Analysis
Analysis of a full 3D model
Since Orion's "FE Chasedown" analysis uses a sub‐frame approach, we should expect to find it agrees closely with
the "baseline" answer.
Orion's 'building analysis' does not utilise sub‐frames, instead it treats the entire structure as a single 3D frame in
which the columns and walls are only fixed at the foundation level.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
We will now consider each of the above analysis methods in turn by comparing them against our "baseline"
answer.
Sub‐Floor Analysis (FE Chasedown)
By choosing the option in Orion to perform an 'FE chasedown analysis', a batch process is initiated in which a
separate analysis of all floors is performed one after the other, starting at the top of the building, and continuing to
the ground level. For each analysis the calculated reactions from the floor above are treated as load input for the
current floor.
When this is run, the bending moment diagram for the comparison frame at the top storey is as follows:
This appears to be in very reasonable agreement with the baseline analysis result shown below.
Although the results are not exactly identical, the differences are generally small and are likely to be down to
internal differences in the way FE beam and wall elements are assumed to connect.
There is however a limitation to this approach ‐ whilst in building analysis pattern load cases can be automatically
derived and included, they are not considered in the FE chasedown analysis. Consideration of pattern loads would
increase the peak design forces but two other factors could be taken into account:
• Support Moments are taken at the centreline of supporting columns. Introducing rigid zones to the analysis
and taking design moments at the face of supports would result in changes to design moments which are
predominantly reductions where beams frame into columns.
• Moment redistribution is not considered.
Some engineers may wish to consider using the FE Chasedown results on the basis that the factors above have
some counterbalancing effect. However, other engineers will prefer to know that pattern load has been considered
and for this reason we tend to suggest that the area factor adjustment method which is illustrated in the next
section may be considered preferable.
Building Analysis, area factor adjustment methods
By choosing the option in Orion to perform a 'building analysis', a single frame model of the entire structure is
created and analysed for all load cases and combinations.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Prior to analysis, global adjustments can be made to member groups used in the analysis model, the default
settings for these are as shown below:
If the analysis is run using the above default settings, the bending moment diagram for the comparison frame at
the top storey is as follows:
There appears to be an anomaly, an unexpected sagging moment is occurring at the beam support.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
To gain a better understanding of why this is happening we need to think about the 3D nature of the analysis
model. To begin with let's display the above diagram in 3D along with the other beams at the top floor:
Bending moments at the top floor of the building analysis model:
This result appears to disagree with our "baseline" answer obtained from the analysis of the top floor as a discrete
model, which is shown below:
Bending moments in the 'control' model:
This raises two immediate questions:
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
• Why do the two models give such different answers?
• If we were to accept the results for the baseline model as being our target result, is there any way to adjust the
building analysis model to bring it back in to line with this target?
Why do the two models give such different answers?
To resolve this we need to compare the two deflection diagrams.
Deflections under dead load for the baseline model:
Deflections under dead load for the top floor of the building analysis model:
In the baseline model the vertical deflections at the beam support points have been eliminated. This is not the case
in the building analysis model ‐ vertical deflections occur at the beam support points. Since stresses are greater in
the columns, these deflections are greater at column support locations than at the wall support locations. The
differential in these deflections is most obvious along the line of the frame on which the 'anomaly' in the bending
moments was detected. (shown in dashed lines above.)
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The differential tends to increase as you get higher in the building. Evidence for this can be seen in the change of
shape of the bending moment diagram along the line of the highlighted frame when plotted for the entire building.
There is an obvious change in the bending moment between the ground and the 9th floor. There is another change
at the 10th floor but this is due to a change in beam sizes. It is perhaps interesting to see that the effect is so
noticeable over the first 9 floors. This is partly because the case of a beam spanning from a wall to a column and
back to a wall is typically the most critical sort of location for exposing this effect.
Differential axial deformations account for the different answers obtained from the two models. Traditional
sub‐frame analysis ignores this effect. Sub‐frame analyses assume there is no vertical deflection at supports,
whether it is appropriate to ignore this will be discussed later in these notes. For the time being we will assume that
you want to ignore it, in which case we now need to determine if it is possible to eliminate it.
How do we eliminate this effect if we want to?
We have already seen that this effect is eliminated in Orion's FE chasedown analysis (because it is a sub‐frame
analysis).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In order to eliminate it from Orion's building analysis, we need to reconsider the default stiffness settings applied to
member groups in the analysis model.
There are probably several strategies of adjusting member properties that could be employed to try and reduce /
eliminate DADE.
1. Make column vertical deflections consistent with the wall deflections by increasing the area factor applied to
columns.
2. Eliminate column and wall vertical deflections completely by substantially increasing the area factor applied to
columns and walls.
3. Adjust beam stiffnesses so that the differential vertical deflections induce much lower bending moments.
4. etc?
After various trials it has been found that the first method (column area factor adjustment) seems effective without
readily introducing unwanted side effects. Therefore, these notes now focus on this method.
Increasing the column area factor
The objective is to increase the column area factor so that the differential axial deformation between columns and
walls is reduced towards the point of being eliminated.
By examining the deflected shape of the frame with the original area factor (AF) of 1.0, it is possible to estimate an
average area factor which may achieve this.
Vertical Deflections under dead load at the top floor for AF = 1.0
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
If the model is re‐analysed with the column AF 2.2 as calculated above, the revised deflected shape indicates a
marked reduction in the differential axial shortening.
The above deflection diagram for AF 2.2 shows that some differential deformation still remains. This is explained
by the fact the stiffer columns also attract more load (increasing it towards the value that the sub‐frame analyses
would determine). A second iteration of the AF calculation should reduce it.
LH AF = 4.4/4.9 = 0.9,
RH AF = 4.4/2.9 = 1.5
Average AF = (0.9+ 1.5)/2 = 1.2
Applying a further factor of 1.2 to the existing 2.2 the new AF becomes 1.2x2.2 = 2.65 ‐ use 2.7.
If the model is analysed with the column AF 2.7 the differential axial shortening is almost eliminated.
Results for these analyses can again be compared with the result from the baseline model.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
With the AF of 2.2 the BM's developed in beams B1 and B2 at the top floor are as follows:
When the AF is increased to 2.7 these become:
These can be compared with our baseline sub‐frame result:
Applying a column AF of 2.2 reduces the effects of differential axial shortening and eliminates the sagging at the
central column support. When the AF is increased to 2.7 the result is even closer to that of our baseline subframe.
Using this slightly higher AF value of 2.7 ensures a conservative design at the column support. The same value
would not be applicable. Arriving at this value is a matter of some judgement but the above demonstrates that a
logical process can be applied.
Whether the AF should be increased still higher would be a matter of engineering judgement. For example if the AF
is increased to 4.0, the resulting bending moments are as follows:
With this higher area factor the hogging moment at the column increases further, however it is reduced at the wall
supports.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
NOTE: An area factor of 4.0 is likely to be extreme for most buildings. In this example it has reversed the
differential deformations ‐ the walls are now shortening by more than the columns, as shown below:
What is a reasonable upper limit for the column area factor adjustment?
The objective in setting an upper limit is to reduce or largely eliminate the differential axial deformation so that the
design forces at each floor more closely resemble those obtained from a traditional approach.
Although differential axial shortening is not taken into account in traditional subframe analysis methods, it will still
exist to a greater or lesser extent in real buildings. Even taking into account the staged nature of construction there
will always be some amount of differential shortening that actually does occur.
The objective of setting the upper limit is therefore to obtain a realistic set of design forces, without necessarily
being concerned about completely eliminating the effects of differential axial shortening.
Detailed comparisons of the analysis results
The above approaches demonstrate that DADE can be at largely eliminated from the analysis results in attempts to
emulate the results achieved by a traditional sub‐frame approach.
To establish a better understanding of the effects of adjusting the area factor we will now compare other aspects of
the analysis results in more detail.
Gravity Loads
When the area factor is used to counteract axial shortening, it affects the axial force distribution as well as the
bending moments. This is illustrated in the table below, showing how the dead load results change at the base of
the frame containing beams B1 and B2 as the area factor is increased:
The axial and bending moment results which accrue at the bottom level of the walls and column along the frame
under consideration can be tabulated as follows:
FE chasedown
AF 1.0 AF 2.2 AF 2.7 AF 4.0
(i.e. subframe)
Left Hand Wall Axial (kN) ‐3219 ‐3091 ‐3065 ‐3025 ‐3042
Column Axial (kN) ‐3233 ‐3954 ‐4103 ‐4342 ‐4112
Right Hand Wall Axial (kN) ‐3044 ‐2862 ‐2828 ‐2776 ‐2889
Left Hand Wall Moment top ‐453 ‐439 ‐436 ‐432 ‐198
(kNm)
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
FE chasedown
AF 1.0 AF 2.2 AF 2.7 AF 4.0
(i.e. subframe)
Column Moment btm (kNm) ‐0.6 ‐1.6 ‐1.8 ‐2.2 7
Right Hand Wall Moment ‐711 ‐555 ‐525 ‐479 7
btm (kNm)
In this case the FE Chasedown results represent the result for the baseline model.
As the area factor is increased there is a shift of axial load from the walls into the columns. This is to be expected.
It is moving the results back towards those obtained for the baseline model. For the bending moments however it
seems that this method results in much higher bending moments in the wall panels than the baseline model. This
moment occurs for all AF levels, it is not introduced by the use of an increased AF. It is likely that this moment is
developing as a result of sway effects that will occur in the full 3D analysis but are excluded from traditional
sub‐frame analysis.
Lateral Loads
The deflections at the top of the building under lateral load can also be compared:
FE chasedown
AF 1.0 AF 2.2 AF 2.7 AF 4.0
(i.e. subframe)
Wind X max (mm) 101.6 99.0 98.4 97.5 N/A
Wind X min (mm) 101.3 98.3 97.7 96.7 N/A
Wind X max resultant (mm) 101.8 99.2 98.4 97.7 N/A
Wind Y max (mm) 79.9 78.4 78.3 78.0 N/A
Wind Y min (mm) 35.9 35.0 34.8 34.5 N/A
Wind Y max resultant (mm) 81.7 80.4 80.3 80.1 N/A
It can be seen from the above that an increase in the area factor from 1.0 to the value of 2.7 or even the extreme
value of 4.0 has very little impact on the deflections at the top of the building due to lateral load. This is because
the columns are not significant in resisting sway deflection. If the deflections were changing then some increased
caution in the use of the AF would be appropriate, this is noted again later.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The axial and bending forces in the columns and walls at the bottom of the model can also be compared for the
wind load cases. The effect that increasing the area factor has on these forces due to wind in X is illustrated below:
FE chasedown
AF 1.0 AF 2.2 AF 2.7 AF 4.0
(i.e. subframe)
Left Hand Wall Axial (kN) 1113 965 937 895 N/A
Column Axial (kN) 1824 2160 2223 2321 N/A
Right Hand Wall Axial (kN) ‐153 ‐225 ‐239 ‐261 N/A
Left Hand Wall Moment top
681 652 651 648 N/A
(kNm)
Column Moment btm (kNm) 124 121 121 120 N/A
Right Hand Wall Moment
9572 9390 9356 9305 N/A
btm (kNm)
Since the introduction of the AF had only a small effect on the deflection (comparing with AF=1.0), it has a similarly
small impact on the distribution of forces.
Recommendation
Based on the above it is recommended that where DADE is of concern and there is a desire to largely eliminate it,
the strategy adopted for applying an AF adjustment should be:
1. After an initial analysis using AF = 1, examine the beam bending moments and the vertical deflections of
columns and walls at the top floor of the structure. Also record sway deflections in both directions.
2. Using the approach demonstrated in this chapter, determine an appropriate AF adjustment to apply.
3. Re run the analysis and review the revised results at the top floor. If the DADE seems to have been largely
eliminated continue with design of all column and wall members.
4. If the deflections are largely unchanged then you might choose to stop at this point, however, the discussion
below should be considered.
5. If the deflections have changed significantly then it is strongly recommended that a second analysis run is made
with a lower AF and that the columns and walls (at least) are checked for the results of this revised analysis.
Within Orion this is a simple procedure and the implications of this are illustrated in the next section.
Is it acceptable to simply emulate the traditional design result?
Ignoring differential axial displacements
If you are happy to work on this basis then all you need to do is adopt one of the methods described previously for
emulating the traditional design, taking note of the associated pros and cons.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
FE Chasedown Analysis
Within Orion there is an automatic batch procedure for achieving this. Despite the name "FE chasedown", the use
of Finite Elements to model the slab is optional and unless there is a specific reason for doing so it is recommended
that these are not used. This method will then very closely emulate the traditional analysis assumptions of
sub‐frame analysis for gravity loads.
A building analysis is still required to determine results for the lateral load cases.
Orion allows you to automatically merge the results of these two analyses to generate the design combinations for
all members.
Cons ‐ No pattern loading and no rigid zones.
Building Analysis ‐ Area Factor (AF) method
Pros ‐ Pattern loading is considered and rigid zones can also be introduced for economy.
Cons ‐ Applying a single area factor globally may not fully remove differential axial deformation at all locations.
Making allowances for differential axial displacements
The inherent assumption within the traditional sub‐frame approach is that differential axial displacement does not
take place to a degree that would affect the design results. What a 3D analysis demonstrates is that this might not
be the case.
Therefore, having analysed the structure on the basis that differential axial displacements are ignored (using one of
the methods described above), you have results that can be considered as an upper‐bound solution. The next step
is therefore to establish a lower‐bound for which each member can then be checked.
In effect this procedure will ensure that all the members are designed for a slightly wider envelope of forces
between these two limits. Two questions tend to be raised when this approach is discussed. First there is the
question of what values should be used for the upper and lower limits. Second there is a concern that this could
end up being considered as uneconomic by comparison with traditional designs. Each of these questions is
considered below.
What is a reasonable lower limit for the area factor adjustment?
Using a low AF allows the effects of differential axial deformation to be exposed. However, as is demonstrated
earlier in these notes, an AF=1.0 will sometimes give results that seem completely incorrect when compared with
expected values based on traditional sub‐frame analysis.
Clearly AF=1.0 can be used as a conservative lower limit. However, bearing in mind that traditional design methods
have completely eliminated this effect, it is worth considering whether or not some slightly increased value could
be easily justified.
This topic is discussed in reasonable depth in CSC's 3D effects presentation which notes that:
• More detailed consideration of the way in which creep and loading develop over time and through the
construction phase dictates that some proportion of differential axial deformation being predicted is
unrealistic. AF=1.0 will over estimate the effect of differential axial deformation.
• Consideration of ACI advice on analysis model properties which allow for the more likely case that beams are
cracked while columns/walls are not would have the same effect as introducing an AF = 1.5. (ACI 318‐08 cl
10.10.4.1 the precise clause number varies in older versions of the ACI, but the guidance appears consistent.)
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
It was suggested in that presentation that a lower bound of somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 is reasonable. 1.5
would be the more conservative value to use (since it widens the envelope between the lower and upper values).
What is the impact on the design when both upper and lower‐bounds are taken into
consideration?
To establish this a comparative study can be undertaken using the test model.
The total weight of beam, column and wall steel can be determined using one of the methods for emulating the
traditional approach. (i.e. the upper‐bound solution). The model can then be reanalysed, having made an
allowance for differential axial displacements, (i.e. the lower‐bound solution). The reinforcement provision already
established is then checked for the new design forces and if necessary the provision is increased at any failing
locations. The overall impact can be assessed in terms of the changes to the total steel reinforcement weight.
The results of this exercise are as follows:
Upper Bound Design for Add check for Add check for
Emulation Upper‐bound Lower‐bound Lower‐bound
Method Only AF 1.5 AF 1.0
AF 2.2 Total Beam Steel (kg) 44980 45334 (+0.8%)
Total Column & Wall Steel (kg) 80185 80211 80712
(+0.03%) (+0.7%)
AF 2.7 Total Beam Steel (kg) 44907 45273 46438
(+0.8%) (+3.3%)
(+0.09%) (+0.7%)
(+1.6%) (+4.4%)
(+0.2%) (+0.8%)
FE Chasedown Total Beam Steel (kg) N/A 43847 45658
(+4.1%)
Total Column & Wall Steel (kg) N/A 80545 82180
(+2.0%)
Note: the total beam reinforcement weight quoted doesn't include the weight of 2B10, 3B14 and 3B15 as these
proved to be inadequate for the forces involved.
Consider Case where AF = 2.7 is upper bound and AF = 1.5 is the lower bound:
In this case the implications of considering the envelope are quite minimal. A 0.8% increase in beam reinforcement
and a 0.01% increase in column and wall reinforcement is introduced.
Consider Case where AF = 4.0 is upper bound and AF = 1.0 is the lower bound:
In this case the envelope being considered includes extremes that have been suggested to be the most
conservative at both ends. The result is that a 4.4% increase in beam reinforcement and a 0.8% increase in column
and wall reinforcement is introduced.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Consider Case where FE Chasedown is upper bound and AF = 1.5 is the lower bound:
FE chasedown only provides results for the gravity loadcase, lateral load results must come from the full 3D building
analysis. In this case the least overall reinforcement weight is determined. This is likely to be because sway effects
introduced by gravity load get eliminated (as they are in a traditional sub‐frame analysis).
What is the impact on the design when Pattern Loading is Introduced?
In order to compare all the methods on a like for like basis, the reinforcement weight comparisons above did not
include analysis or design for pattern load conditions. It was noted earlier that the FE Chasedown method in Orion
does not currently cater for pattern loads. Pattern loads can only be considered by the AF method where the full
3D building analysis is used. The full 3D analysis also allows rigid zones to be introduced in which case design
moments are taken at the face rather than the centreline of supports. Therefore, we can look at the overall impact
of considering pattern loads but at the same time introducing the efficiency of rigid zones.
The reinforcement weights when both pattern load and rigid zones are considered are as follows:
..
Upper Bound Design for Add check for Add check for

Emulation Upper‐bound Lower‐bound Lower‐bound
Method Only AF 1.5 AF 1.0
(+0.8%) (+3.3%)
(+0.1%) (+0.9%)
(+1.6%) (+4.6%)
(+0.2%) (+1.0%)
Compare the total weight requirement after designing for upper bound of 2.7 and lower bound of 1.5. For the
beams the weight is now 40964kg, it was 45273kg before rigid zones were introduced. For the columns the weight
is now 78891kg, it was 80261kg before rigid zones were introduced. The new reinforcement weights are also
slightly lower than the weight previously shown when the FE chasedown method was used (43847 and 80545
respectively).
For this example model, the AF method can be used with double benefit when compared to FE chasedown:
1. It eliminates any concerns about not having considered pattern loads
2. By introducing the efficiency of rigid zones it also results in the least overall reinforcement requirement.
Conclusion on Design Impact
For the example model it seems that the impact of considering upper and lower bound solutions would have quite
minimal effect on overall construction cost. For the columns and walls in particular it seems that the vast majority
of members are unaffected.
The FE chasedown method does not allow pattern loads to be considered at the upper bound. If this is a concern
then the AF method must be used. In practice the AF method will be a little more time consuming to apply, but this
example also demonstrates that allowing the use of rigid zones along with full pattern loading could have a net
overall benefit when compared to the FE chasedown method.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Overall Summary of Suggested Procedure
Assuming the Area Factor method is to be adopted the following steps summarise the entire procedure that should
be undertaken.
• Determine if DADE is important for the structure under consideration.
• After an initial analysis using AF = 1, examine the beam bending moments and the vertical deflections of
columns and walls at the top floor of the structure.
• If effects are not a concern then no further action is required.
• If steps need to be taken to eliminate DADE record sway deflections in both directions before proceeding.
• Initial Design ‐ Emulate traditional hand calculation methods
• Use the approach demonstrated in these notes to determine an appropriate AF adjustment to apply. (If it is
your intention to perform the check design stage below then there is little harm in erring on the high side at
this point)
• Re run the analysis and review the revised results at the top floor. If the DADE seems to have been largely
eliminated continue with design of all column and wall members.
• Design all columns/walls/beams
• If the sway deflections are largely unchanged then you might choose to stop at this point, however, if you
prefer to cross check taking some account of DADE then proceed to next stage.
• If the deflections have changed significantly then it is strongly recommended that a second analysis run is
made with a lower AF and that the columns and walls (at least) are checked for the results of this revised
analysis.
• Check Design ‐ Allow for differential axial deformations
• Use a column area multiplier of between 1.5 and 2.0 (1.0 if you want to be more conservative)
• Run check design on all columns/walls/beams. (Check design on beams might be considered optional)
• Increase reinforcement on any failed members
(needs to be done interactively on beam lines)
• Final Design and Submission Calculations
• Return to the AF determined at the initial design stage above.
• Run check design on all columns/walls/beams (all should pass if the above exercise was completed
properly).
• Generate submission calculations:
• Moment diagrams etc based on this analysis will be more familiar to the checking engineer.
• You will however have designed for larger moments in some places, so the steel may appear to be
overprovided at those points.
The above is illustrated in a DADE Analysis & Design Flowchart at the end of this chapter together with the possible
option of using the FE chasedown procedure.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Closing Discussion
Typical Concerns
The sorts of concerns expressed by engineers as they begin to consider this topic for the first time and then in
greater detail are:
1. The suggested area factor is not a defined value, it is just a suggested range of values. I really want a fixed value
or values that can always be used.
2. Making these adjustments to cater for gravity load may be logical but are there side effects? For example, will
it cause completely different force distribution and building deflection under wind loading cases?
3. Does the FE chasedown option provide another (better?) way to eliminate differential axial deformation?
4. If I am designing for a wider envelope of forces am I not over‐designing the structure?
5. Can this all be solved more accurately by using Staged Construction analysis?
What answers are we trying to get?
Discussion of any of the above has to be prefaced by an acceptance and understanding of the fact that "correct"
answers do not exist. This point is introduced in the opening discussion. The uncertainties associated with
concrete as a material and with construction generally dictate this. These sorts of uncertainties (cracking, creep,
etc) are noted in the seminar presentation.
Traditionally answers have been achieved by methods involving very significant idealisation ‐ continuous beam/
sub‐frame analysis. Generally such designs would totally ignore the potential impact of differential axial
deformation. Are these design forces to be considered as the "correct" answers, or should the potential impact of
differential axial deformation be considered?
Assuming it is agreed that differential axial deformation should not be completely ignored then we have a decision
to make ‐ do we always allow for axial deformation and abandon the previous methods where it was ignored? This
is a really a matter for the general engineering community, but if we assume that there is concern about
abandoning the results that have always been used with no particularly detrimental effect, then we inevitably end
up having to consider designing for an envelope of forces derived from differing assumptions.
Fixed Values for Area Adjustment Factor
A single fixed value could only be possible if a decision were made to either always ignore or always allow for
differential axial deformation. For reasons noted above this does not seem to be a viable option and so we must
really focus on whether a range with fixed upper and lower limits is possible.
For the upper limit we are considering the case where differential axial deformation is being largely eliminated.
Values of 3‐5 are discussed in the presentation but this is actually something that can be quite structure
dependent. However, it is also something where logic can be applied. If the deflections from an un‐modified
analysis are examined and a wall is deflecting down by 2mm while the columns adjacent to it are deflecting 5.5mm
then the area factor required to eliminate this will be a little in excess of 5.5/2 = 2.75. (Bear in mind that the stiffer
columns will attract increased axial load).
In the example the relatively large size of the columns compared to the walls results in quite a low figure of around
2.7 being a reasonable upper limit, but use of values slightly higher than this would really only add a little to overall
design conservatism.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
For the lower limit we are considering the case where differential axial deformation is allowed for. As is noted
above a logical but very conservative lower limit is 1.0. For reasons detailed in the presentation we suggest that a
1.5 value is actually a very reasonable lower limit.
Side Effects on Lateral Load Analysis
There will be some effect, but the following must be noted:
• The area factor is only affecting the axial load deformation characteristics of the columns, the bending stiffness
is not affected.
• Generally walls are providing the majority of lateral load resistance and so adjusting column properties has
quite limited impact on deflections.
Once again the impact of this is illustrated in the example. The percentage change in deflections is relatively small.
A bigger question (not considered here) is the extent to which any analysis accurately predicts lateral deflection.
The result is again entirely dependent on allowances made for creep and cracking. ACI guidance on this is more
thorough and suggests varying member stiffness adjustments.
Will FE Chasedown also eliminate differential axial deformation?
Yes ‐ this is demonstrated in these notes. Instead of running the building analysis with the increased area factor,
results from an FE chasedown could be used. There is however a limitation in this approach, pattern load cases are
not considered during FE chasedown. For this reason we would suggest that the area factor adjustment method is
not dismissed.
In Orion pattern load cases are automatically derived and included in the full building analysis. We understand that
in some other software this is not so easy to achieve and so perhaps it is not considered imperative that patterning
is considered as well as eliminating differential axial deformation. In this case some engineers may prefer the
option in Orion to use FE chasedown.
Is this going to result in uncompetitive over design?
Traditional design tended to ignore the impact of differential axial deformation. If we now consider this effect, but
continue to consider the traditional results as well, then the envelope of design forces will inevitably widen for
some members which will result in more onerous design. However, for the example model considered the net
effect of this proved to be quite minimal.
Is this over design, or a more thorough and professional approach taking account of modern analytical capabilities?
This is really another question for the engineering community.
Could I avoid all this complication if Staged Construction Analysis were used?
This would not avoid complication ‐ it would just mean that different complications need to be addressed. A single
staged construction analysis can not deliver "correct" answers. The unknowns associated with the input for such
an analysis dictate this. This is illustrated within our presentation, but the key point to consider is that this type of
analysis means you have to define properties that would not normally be defined for a basic elastic‐static analysis,
and you would have to allow for uncertainties associated with these:
• Time varying properties of concrete ‐ you have to be able to define what properties should be used at every
time step (stage). This includes consideration of early age creep effects.
• You have to define the way in which loading becomes active through the stages.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
You must then layer on top of this the need to consider patterning of load. In this context there is load patterning
along beam lines but also the need to consider loaded and unloaded floors through the height of the building. Can
this be realistically achieved as part of a staged construction analysis of a large structure?
As with any analysis, if it is not used with a reasonable degree of care and understanding then a staged construction
analysis can be a sophisticated and time consuming way of getting bad answers.
We would suggest that a staged construction analysis is another way of establishing an envelope of possibilities.
The parameters applied during this process are not specified in any design code so this approach ought to be
subject to a similar degree of judgment and scrutiny as is required for the area factor adjustment approach.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
DADE Analysis & Design Flowchart
09. FE1.
START Which FE
Are Rigid yes
method to resolve Zones set to
DADE? ‘None’?
01.
AF no
Build/Edit the Model
AF1. FE2.
Determine upperbound AF Set Rigid Zones to ‘None’ and re-run
02 Building Analysis
Derive Beam Loads  FE results can not be merged if rigid
 Yield Lines or zones have been used
 FE decomposition for Beam Loads
AF2.
Re-run Building Analysis using FE3.
upperbound AF Run FE Chasedown Analysis
 compare sway deflections with  DON'T use meshed floors
03.
those obtained from lowerbound
Decide on a lowerbound AF  DO include upper storey loads
solution (step 05)
 Conservatively use the default AF = 1.0
 To reduce DADE, use 1.5 – 2.0
FE4.
Merge FE beam and
column results
AF3.
04.  Because FE Chasedown considers
Design all members gravity loads only, the lateral results
Decide if Rigid Zones are to be used
 This is a design for the
 When utilised in Building Analysis, rigid from step 05. are still retained
upperbound analysis solution
zones can produce a more economic solution
in which DADE has been
minimised
FE5.
Design all members
05.  This is a design for the upperbound
Run Building Analysis analysis solution in which DADE are
AF4.
 This step is mandatory in order to produce virtually eliminated
analysis results for the lateral loads Re-run Building Analysis using
 This step also produces a lowerbound lowerbound AF
analysis solution for gravity loads (in which  This re-instates the lowerbound
FE6.
DADE may exist) analysis solution obtained in
step 05 Un-merge FE beam and
column results
 This re-instates the lowerbound
analysis solution obtained in
step 05
sizes 06. AF5.
not OK
Initial Design Check all members
FE7.
Check  Increase reinforcement in failed
members Check all columns and walls
 Increase reinforcement in failed
sizes OK members
AF6.
07. Re-run Building Analysis using FE8.
Is DADE a yes upperbound AF and check all Optionally - check all beams
concern? members  Because the lowerbound solution
 If step AF5 above was done caters for pattern load the user may
properly all should pass at this want to consider it’s effect
no point and design calculations  Increase reinforcement in failed beams
should be saved
08.
Design All members
FE9.
Re-merge FE beam and column
results and check all members
 If steps FE7 and FE8 above were done
FINISH properly all should pass at this point &
design calculations should be saved
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Flowchart Notes.
Box
Comment
No.
03. Justification for increasing the AF may be derived from ACI advice on analysis
model properties which allows for the more likely case that beams are cracked
while columns/walls are not. Refer to What is a reasonable lower limit for the
area factor adjustment? for an introduction to further discussion on this.
04. See Rigid Zones for further details on the use of these.
06. Inadequate initial member sizing can have significant impact on force
distribution around the structure. It is important to review the member sizing
at an early stage in order to prevent having to increase undersized members
later on.
07. Determine if DADE is important by examining
• how the beam bending moments change over the height of the structure,
• the vertical deflections of vertical elements at the top floor
see Why do the two models give such different answers? for details of how to
do this.
08. If DADE is not a concern, the design is now complete.
09. It is down to user preference which method is adopted for minimising/
eliminating DADE, noting that:
• AF method ‐ Applying a single area factor globally may not fully remove
differential axial deformation at all locations.
• FE Chasedown method ‐ No rigid zones, and for the upperbound solution
no pattern loading.
AF1. See Increasing the column area factor for details of how to do this.
AF2. The deflections at the top of the building under lateral load should be
compared. Provided the differences are small the impact on the distribution of
lateral forces will be small. See Overall Summary of Suggested Procedure for
additional notes on this. If the high AF is affecting the deflections it is more
important that the lower bound solution is checked for all members.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 14 : Using Staged Construction Analysis to Emulate ‘Traditional’ Design
Chapter 14 Using Staged Construction Analysis to Emulate ‘Traditional’
Design
Introduction
As described in the previous chapter a 'traditional' design will historically have been based on the results of a series
of discrete 2D subframe analyses, in which:
• Sub‐frame analyses are carried out at each floor from top down (assuming fixed supports)
• Deflection compatibility between sub‐models is ignored.
• Column and wall forces are established by summing up the axial loads determined from each of the separate
analyses.
Alternative methods of emulating the above in Orion were investigated and the following methods were described:
• Sub‐Floor Analysis
Referred to in Orion as FE Chasedown analysis.
• Building Analysis with Area Factor Adjustment
Analysis of a full 3D model
In this chapter a third alternative is explored via a worked example:
• Staged Construction Analysis
Analysis of a full 3D model in stages
Worked Example:
In the previous chapter we established some traditional sub‐frame
results for beams at the 20th floor of a building and then looked at
how closely these results were emulated using full 3D analysis., the
purpose of the exercise being to quantify the effects of differential
axial deformations.
From the results it was possible to then formulate recommendations
for emulating a ‘traditional design’.
In this worked example the same model is used to examine 3D
staged construction analysis and compare the results with those
obtained previously. Once again the objective is to derive a means of
emulating a ‘traditional design’.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Previous Results (from FE Analysis and Unstaged Building Analysis)
A single beam line at the top floor was chosen for the purposes of comparison.
Sub‐Floor Analysis (FE Chasedown)
The bending moment diagram below was obtained by performing an FE chasedown analysis. This type of analysis
eliminates differential axial deformation effects (DADE) and is considered a reasonable base‐line answer against
which the other approaches can be compared
Building Analysis without Area Factor adjustment
When a BuildingAnalysis was run using default settings, the bending moment diagram for the comparison frame
was as follows, the effect of DADE is clearly apparent:
Building Analysis with Area Factor adjustment
As discussed in Chapter 13 Area Factors can be applied to reduce DADE. With the AF set at 2.7 the following result
was obtained
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Staged Construction Analysis Result
Currently this is only available for unfactored cases utilising 25% rigid arms:
The unstaged G+Q*F result (with 25% rigid arms and AF = 2.2) is:
• Super‐posing these answers we get a staged combination result as follows:
LH Support RH Support
Solution Method Span Moment
Moment Moment
FE Chasedown ‐100.4 67.4 ‐103.8
BA unstaged ‐189 70 ‐16
BA AF 2.2 ‐126.2 62.9 ‐84.4
BA staged ‐115.8 62.4 ‐95
The staged result initially appears to offer an as good or better means of eliminating DADE than is achieved through
the Area Factor approach, (although comparison is difficult as the staged and AF results in the above table allow for
rigid arms whereas the FE result does not).
However, when the staged results are examined in more detail the conclusion is less clear cut.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Does Staged Analysis eliminate DADE?
To answer this question, firstly we need to make a comparison between the unstaged and the staged bending
moments that develop over the full height of the example building:
Unstaged Q - BMD Floors Staged Q - BMD Floors
Each bending moment diagram shows a significant step change at the 10th floor ‐ this can be accounted for by the
step change in beam sizes that takes place at this level.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
DADE is clearly affecting the unstaged analysis results from the second floor all the way through to the top floor of
the building.
The staged analysis seems to be largely unaffected by DADE at the upper floor levels, but this does not hold true
from around the 10th floor level and below. (In this particular worked example it should be noted that the effect is
being amplified due to the central column size being larger over the first 10 storeys.)
The shape of the above bending moment diagrams can be understood more clearly by considering the extent by
which the central column shortens in each analysis.
In the unstaged analysis the column axial shortening must accumulate as you get higher in the building. The vertical
deflection of the column at the top floor is directly affected by the axial shortening of the lower columns, which is
occuring due to the load they each carry.
Unstaged Analysis Deflections
1st Floor 10th Floor Top Floor
In the staged analysis, the top floor forces and deflections are determined from the analysis of the final stage alone,
in this stage only the top floor loads are applied and the loads carried by other floors have no influence ‐ hence
column shortening is not being accumulated from one floor to the next.
Staged Analysis Deflections
1st Floor 10th Floor Top Floor
So in the staged analysis, why are we seeing DADE occurring, particularly at the 10th floor and below? ‐ To answer
this you need to consider how the forces and deflections at the 10th floor are determined from the combined
effect of the analyses of 10th stage to the final stage, (consisting of all the loads from the 10th floor to the top
floor). This significant amount of load is being carried by a column which is 10 storeys high ‐ there is undoubtably
going to be considerable axial shortening taking place.
Lower in the building, at the 1st floor level the column is carrying a much greater load ‐ however, because it is so
short the amount of axial dispacement would be minimal.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Conclusions
Staged Construction does not eliminate DADE. (this particular example exacerbates the effect because of the
change in sections ‐ the effect may not be so evident in other models??).
It moves the position where they are most significant (to building mid height ) and reduces them to some degree.
This result is not technically wrong , but is it what engineers want?
If you are happy to completely ignore differential axial displacements then all you need to do is adopt one of
the methods described previously for emulating the traditional design, taking note of the associated pros and
cons.
If you are happy to take some account of DADE then staged construction may offer the best solution.
Use of Staged Construction as the upper bound solution
The previous chapter discussed use of AF method to establish lower and upper bound solutions and designing for
the resulting envelope. (You could also use ACI method of reducing inertias)
In this chapter an alternative has been provided to the above using staged construction, in which the lower bound
solution is an unstaged analysis and the upper bound solution is staged G+Q. (You might however consider closing
the gap between these by taking the upperbound as staged G and unstaged Q).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 15 : Design and Detailing
Chapter 15 Design and Detailing
Introduction
The following section of the Engineer’s Handbook contains six chapters relating to the design and detailing of the
various member types:
• Slab Design looks at slab strip errors and the actions required should you encounter them.
• Beam Design to BS8110 looks at Orion’s beam design process, relating it to the relevant code clauses. A
worked example is included.
• Beam Detailing provides an overview of the beam detailing process, describing the available patterns and
beam detailing settings. A worked example is used to illustrate how careful application of preferences can
produce either: a minimum weight solution (where the details may be more complex), or a more
standardised detail (with a slightly higher weight of reinforcement).
• Column Design to BS8110 looks at Orion’s column/wall design process, relating it to the relevant code clauses.
Worked examples are included.
• Wall Design and Detailing looks at additional aspects of Orion’s design process that are unique to walls.
• Foundation Design describes the procedures required for defining and designing the various foundation
elements available in Orion.
• Design of RC Beam‐Column Joints to HK Code of Practice 2004 describes the procedures required for
performing joint shear checks in accordance to Hong Kong Code of Practice .
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 16 : Slab Design
Chapter 16 Slab Design
Overview
Referring back to the Modelling Analysis and Design Flowchart in the initial Overview chapter, you can see that slab
design may be based either on tabulated code coefficients, or on finite element analysis (FE) results.
Design based on the tabulated code coefficients is covered in the training manual. Discussion there also extends to
the option of using an FE strip, but design based on FE is covered in greater depth in this manual in the chapters
Analysis and Design using FE and Flat Slab Models.
In both cases, the design approach involves creating slab strips. Checks are applied as you create these strips to
ensure they are valid. The following brief notes may be of some additional assistance (assuming that you have
already completed the training examples successfully).
Slab Strip Errors – Reviewing/Understanding
The Slab Strip creation process will fail and display an error message if you are attempting to define an invalid strip.
The message is displayed on the status line at the bottom of the screen,
No. of Slabs and Beams along strip is not consistent!
This occurs if you have defined a strip that does not pass through alternating beams and slabs in the correct
sequence.
A typical occurrence of this is when attempting to create a strip that either begins or ends with a cantilever slab but
you have set the end condition to either Bob or Slab.
It could also occur if you have drawn a strip that spans across an open area such as a lift core where there is no slab.
Finally, it could also occur if at some point along the strip it encounters two consecutive slabs without a beam
separating them.
Action Required:
For case 1 above, change the end condition to Cantilever and update the strip.
For case 2, split the strip into two half strips. Draw one strip ending in the open area and then a second strip coming
out of the open area.
For case 3, redefine the slab panels so that the strip passes from beam to slab panel to beam etc.
Creating Member… (but nothing seems to happen)
This occurs if your strip doesn’t entirely traverse one entire slab.
Action Required:
Interrupt the process by clicking on to another command on the Members toolbar, then redraw the strip but
increase its length so that it entirely traverses at least one entire slab.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 17 : Beam Design to BS8110
Chapter 17 Beam Design to BS8110
Introduction
Orion designs beams bent about the major axis using the code clauses given in BS 8110‐1:1997: Part 1 Section 3.4.
The following table summarises the various stages of the beam design process:
Step Calculation Clause
1. Slenderness limits for lateral stability 3.4.1.6
If flanged ‐ calculate effective width of flanged
2. 3.4.1.5
beam
3. Analysis of Sections 3.4.4.1
3.4.4.4,
4. Design for Bending
3.4.4.5
Calculate K/K’ 3.4.4.4
Calculate z 3.4.4.4
Calculate x 3.4.4.4
Calculate As required 3.4.4.4
If K > K’ calculate As’ required 3.4.4.4
5. Design for Shear 3.4.5
Calculate shear stress in beam, v 3.4.5.2
Calculate design concrete shear stress, vc 3.4.5.4
Determine shear reinforcement 3.4.5.3
Spacing of links 3.4.5.5
6. Design for Torsion Part 2: 2.4
Calculate torsional stress in beam, vt Part 2: 2.4.4.1
Calculate limiting torsional stress, vc Part 2: 2.4.5
Calculate minimum torsional stress, vt,min Part 2: 2.4.6
Determine torsional reinforcement Part 2: 2.4.7
7. Deflection of Beams 3.4.6
Span/effective depth ratios 3.4.6.3
Modification of span/effective depth ratios for 3.4.6.5
tension/compression reinforcement 3.4.6.6
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Beam Design Settings
You take control of the above design process by configuring the Beam Design Settings dialog to your preference.
For further details of the implications of adjusting the various settings see the chapter Beam Detailing
The BS8110 Beam Design Process
1. Check slenderness limits for lateral stability‐ Cl 3.4.1.6
A warning message is displayed during the member definition if the slenderness limit has been exceeded.
2. Rectangular or flanged ‐ Cl 3.4.1.5
The choice of this setting is set via the Design tab of Beam Design Settings as shown below:
The option to use the rectangular section (rather than the flanged section) when the flange is in compression will
generally result in slightly more conservative steel area requirements, however if minimum steel requirements apply
then design using the flanged section will introduce greater steel requirements.
If a flanged section is used the effective width is determined from Cl 3.4.1.5.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
3. Analysis of Sections ‐ Cl 3.4.4.1
All considerations stated in the Cl 3.4.4.1 are fulfilled. The simplified stress block for concrete as illustrated in Figure
3.3 is utilized.
4. Design for Bending‐ Cl 3.4.4.4 and Cl 3.4.4.5
Bending is checked for the top edge in three regions:
1. left (worst case forces in end region ‐ 25% clear span)
2. middle (worst case forces in mid region ‐ 50% clear span)
3. right (worst case forces in end region ‐ 25% clear span)
Similarly, bending is checked for the bottom edge in three regions:
4. left (worst case forces in end region ‐ 15% clear span)
5. middle (worst case forces in mid region ‐ 70% clear span)
6. right (worst case forces in end region ‐ 15% clear span))
The design moments for each of the six regions can be displayed by from the Beams tab by firstly highlighting the
beam required in the table and then clicking the Interactive Design button as shown below::
The effective depth h’ to the centre of the bars is worked out separately at each location. This is automatically
reduced if the steel doesn’t fit in a single layer.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
You can control this calculation via the Design tab of Beam Design Settings as shown below:
Centre of Gravity of Steel Bars — the section effective depth will be determined based on the centre of gravity
of the tension bars. In this method, the contribution of each tension bar in the section will be considered
separately.
Centre of Gravity of Layers — in this more conservative method the calculation of section effective depth is
based on the average of the distances of the steel bar layers.
Values for K, K’, x, As, and As’ are then all calculated for each region and are also shown in the same table.
Where the ratio of K/K’ is less than 1.0 no compression steel is required.
5. Design for Shear ‐ Cl 3.4.5
The design shear force at the column face, Vd is displayed in the same table as the design moments:
From the Design tab of Beam Design Settings you can specify if you want to design for this value, or (if the
conditions of Cl. 3.4.5.10 are met) you may choose to design for the shear at ‘d’ from the column face.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
If the latter option is adopted the design shear force at ‘d’ is then displayed and used in the design calculations as
shown below:
In the above table, the maximum shear stress v is determined from Cl 3.4.5.2 and is always based on Vd (not
Vd@d). This is cross checked against the maximum permissible shear stress v‐max, which is defined in the beam
design settings.
vc is calculated using the equation in table 3.8. In BS8110 the concrete grade considered for shear is capped at 40N/
mm2.
Link requirements are established from Table 3.7 as follows ‐ v is determined from either Vd or Vd@d depending on
your choice in the beam design settings and Vnom – Nominal shear capacity (based on minimum link provision) is
established.
The maximum shear requirement is then checked at each end of the beam and if the nominal capacity is not
sufficient additional links are provided over a distance (x) extending to the point where the nominal capacity is
adequate (or beyond if user preferences dictate minimum lengths).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
6. Design for Torsion ‐ BS8110‐2:1985 Cl 2.4
The highest torsion at any point along the beam is determined and used in the torsional shear calculations. These
calculations are performed in accordance with the relevant clauses in Part 2 of BS8110 (as listed below). The values
determined are displayed by clicking on the link fields in the Reinforcement Data form. They are also output to the
Design Report:
In the above table, the maximum torsional shear stress vt is determined from the torsional moment Td according to
Cl 2.4.4.1. This is then cross checked against the limiting torsional shear stress as per Cl 2.4.5, taking into account if
required the different limit that applies to small sections (where y1 < 550mm).
Provided the section is adequate, vt is compared to the minimum torsional stress vt,min.
If vt is smaller than vt,min then the links are designed for 'normal' shear only ‐ no torsion reinforcement required.
In which case although a non‐zero value of Td is displayed, vt is set to 0.00 as shown below:
If vt is greater than vt,min then designed torsion shear reinforcement is provided as per Table 2.4 as follows:
If v <= vc + 0.4
Designed torsion shear reinforcement is provided, (but not less than minimum shear reinforcement)
and longitudinal torsion reinforcement is provided.
Else
Designed shear and torsion reinforcement is provided and longitudinal torsional reinforcement is
provided.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Where torsion reinforcement is provided the spacing is checked in accordance with Cl. 2.4.8 and uniform links will
be provided along the whole beam.
Where longitudinal torsion reinforcement is provided this is distributed equally inside the perimeter links,
(between the top and bottom faces for smaller beams, or between all four faces for deeper beams). The clear
distance between these bars should not exceed 300mm and at least four bars, one in each corner of the perimeter
links, should be used.
7. Deflection Checks ‐ Cl 3.4.6
Basic span/effective depth ratios are calculated from Table 3.9 and modification factors applied according to Table
3.10 and 3.11.
Note The beam size is not automatically increased to satisfy the deflection criteria ‐ it is highly
unusual for beams to be sized so that deflection is a controlling factor. Also, it should be noted
that increasing the steel is usually a highly uneconomic way of controlling deflection. It is more
normal to conclude that the beam is not deep enough if beam deflection checks fail.
Worked Example
The Design Model
The example model Doc_Example_4 is opened and saved to a new name (so as not to destroy the original
example). In the calculations that follow, the steel grade has been set to 500 with a steel material factor of 1.15. Bar
diameters permitted for the longitudinal steel in the beams have been limited to 10, 12, 16, 20 and 25mm. The
minimum link diameter is set to 10mm. The concrete grade is C32/40 and the unit weight of concrete is set as
25kN/m3. Note that to obtain similar results you will need to apply the same settings. However, the actual design
process would be identical irrespective of which material grades, material factors and bar diameters are used.
A building analysis is run with no rigid arms specified, followed by a batch design for all beams.
The focus of the example will be the continuous beam on grid line 2 and the design of beam 1B14 in particular.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Beam 1B14
This beam has the following geometry:
• span = 4m
• beam depth, h = 400mm; beam width, b = 250mm
• cover = 20mm
Beam Design Settings
The beam design settings initially adopted are as shown:
Settings on the Design tab
Note Where the cover shown above has been set to 0 ‐ as noted on the dialog, the cover is then
based on code requirements ‐ (i.e. a default cover of 20mm is applied). You may prefer to enter
a value directly into each field to set the cover required.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Settings on the Parameters tab
Settings on the Bar Selection/Method tab
Settings on the Bar Selection/Steel Pattern tab
Settings on the Bar Selection/Links tab
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Analysis Results
Having run a building analysis using default analysis settings, the design envelope for all combinations is as follows:
Performing the Design
To perform the design calculations select beam 1B14 in the plan view, right click and choose Beam Reinforcement
Design from the menu. This will display the Steel Bars data for the three beams on Axis 2.
Each stage of the design process will now be examined in detail.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Click the Beams tab to see the Axis and Beam Data with beam 1B14 highlighted:
Design for Bending ‐ Cl 3.4.4.4
Click the Interactive Design button to see the six design moments for 1B14 determined from the analysis moments
shown previously:
The area of steel calculations are listed below the design moments. These can be confirmed with simple hand
calculations using Cl 3.4.4.4. However, before this can be done we need to know the bar sizes used to accurately
calculate the effective depth.
Click the Steel Bars tab to see the steel bars provided:
Effective depth to bar centre
h’ (RHS top edge) = 400 ‐ 20 ‐ 10 ‐ 12/2= 364mm
h’ (other locations) = 400 ‐ 20 ‐ 10 ‐ 10/2 = 365mm
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Area of Steel Required: Top Edge ‐ Left Hand Side
K = M/bd2fcu = 0.011
K’ = 0.156
K/K’ = 0.07 < 1.0 compression steel not required
z = d(0.5 + (0.25 – K/0.9)0.5) = 0.99d
z = min (0.99d, 0.95d) = 347mm
x = (d‐z) / 0.45 = 40.6mm – OK
As required = M / 0.87fyz = 98.0mm2
Minimum As from Table 3.25
0.13x250x400 =130mm2
Area of Steel Required: Top Edge ‐ Right Hand Side
K = M/bd2fcu = 0.022
K’ = 0.156
K/K’ = 0.14 < 1.0 compression steel not required
z = d(0.5 + (0.25 – K/0.9)0.5) = 0.97d
z = min (0.97d, 0.95d) = 346mm
x = (d‐z) / 0.45 = 40.4mm – OK
As required = M / 0.87fyz = 196.7mm2
Note Similar calculations to those shown above are performed for the other four regions.
Area of Steel Provided:
The steel provision is dictated by the current Beam Design Settings. The bar selection and curtailment options
chosen will greatly influence the weight of steel and the complexity of the resulting detail. For more
information see the Beam Detailing chapter of this Handbook.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Design for Shear ‐ Cl 3.4.5
On the Reinforcement Data dialog, click on any of the link fields for 1B14 to see the shear design calculations:
Left Hand Support
Max shear stress from Cl 3.4.5.2 —
v = Vd / bvd = 0.41 N/mm2 < v‐max ‐ OK
vc is calculated using the equation in table 3.8 —
d = 365mm, As = 157.1mm2
100As/b.d = 0.172
Note As provided is used in the above calculation
vc = (40/25)0.33 0.79.(0.172)0.33 (400/365)0.25 /1.25 = 0.42
Right Hand Support
Max shear stress from Cl 3.4.5.2 —
v = Vd / bvd = 0.49 N/mm2 < v‐max ‐ OK
d = 366mm, As = 226.2mm2
100As/b.d = 0.247
vc = (40/25)0.33 0.79.(0.247)0.33 (400/366)0.25 /1.25 = 0.48
Span
d = 365mm, As = 235.6mm2
100As/b.d = 0.258
vc = (40/25)0.33 0.79.(0.258)0.33 (400/365)0.25 /1.25 = 0.48
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Link requirements
Determine if minimum bars at maximum spacing provide “minimum links” —
Asv_req / sv = (0.4.bv)/0.87fyv = 0.23
For minimum bars at maximum spacing, provide H10 links at 250mm centres
Asv_prov / sv = 2 x 78.5 / 250 = 0.63
In this case OK ‐ (if not OK decrease the spacing until requirement is met).
Calculate vnom using the minimum links —
capacity from vc
vc b.d = 43.8kN
capacity from links
(0.87 fyv Asv_prov / (bv.sv)). (bv.d) = 99.8N
vnom = 43.8 + 99.7 = 143.6 kN
Determine if shear at the ends exceeds vnom —
40.7kN < 143.6kN
In this case OK ‐ hence minimum links apply for whole length of beam.
If the shear at either end had exceeded vnom ‐ the distance, x to the point where vnom is adequate would be
determined as shown below, and a calculation performed to determine the increased links to apply over
that length.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Design for Torsion ‐ BS8110‐2:1985 Cl 2.4
On the Reinforcement Data dialog, click on any of the link fields for 1B14 to see if torsion shear calculations are
required:
In this example there is no torsion in the beam and so it is designed for 'normal' shear only ‐ no torsion
reinforcement is required.
Deflection Checks ‐ Cl 3.4.6
Checks are based on the span values for sagging moment design.
L/d = 4000/365 = 10.96 – OK
Table 3.9. For a rectangular beam ‐ basic permissible ratio = 26
Table 3.10– modification for tension reinforcement
M/bd2 = 0.91
As req = 201.2
As prov = 235.7
fs = 2fy.As req / (3As prov) = 284.5N/mm2
Modification Factor = 1.44
Table 3.11– modification for compression reinforcement
100As’prov /bd = 0.172
Modification Factor = 1.05
Therefore adjusted Permissible L/d = 26*1.44*1.05 = 39.4 – OK
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Output Calculations
The following report shows the output for the beams along axis 2:
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 18 : Beam Detailing
Chapter 18 Beam Detailing
Introduction
Orion has always included numerous beam design and detailing options that are all controlled from the main beam
Settings and Parameters dialog that is shown below.
Given that there are tabs with sub‐tabs and numerous options under each, the control of these settings can be very
daunting. With each Orion release even more options tend to be added in order to respond to user demand to be
able to apply more and more specific preferences.
The objective of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of the options in general and then more specifically the
reinforcement pattern options, the first of which is highlighted above.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The Design and Detailing Process
Overview
It is worth considering why so many options have developed and to do so requires some reflection on the design
and detailing process. We can break this process into stages:
1. A model is created and analysed.
2. Analysis results are reviewed and design forces are established at critical cross sections.
3. Cross section design determines the areas of reinforcement required.
4. Bars are selected that provide at least sufficient reinforcement.
5. The bars are arranged and curtailed so that the reinforcement provided is sufficient at all cross sections.
6. The information is conveyed on a detail drawing.
This may initially seem simple enough but it soon becomes apparent that any two engineers or draughtsmen are
quite likely to apply different preferences (personal preferences or company standards) and get different results at
every stage of the process.
This may initially seem simple enough but it soon becomes apparent that any two engineers or draughtsmen are
quite likely to apply different preferences (personal preferences or company standards) and get different results at
every stage of the process.
The analysis stage is not the focus for this document but it is worth noting that Orion provides many analysis
options, which will mean the analysis results differ, for example:
• Option to use rigid zones (not only generates a more complex analysis model but also means that design
moments at the face rather than the centre‐line of the column may be used).
• Option to use flanged or rectangular section for the beams.
• Options to adjust stiffnesses of beams, columns, etc.
Having got the analysis results we head into design and that is where all the settings in the Beam Settings and
Parameters dialog start to apply. The dialog is organised so that the main tabs introduce settings in the order in
which you would apply them in the design process. The following subsections of this chapter provide an overview
of the settings under each of the main tabs in turn.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The Design Tab
These settings are generally self evident, they will tend to have a slight influence on the values of As required that
emerge from the design. For example the options to design for the shear at the column face and to use the
rectangular section (rather than the flanged section) when the flange is in compression will result in slightly more
conservative steel area requirements.
The Parameters Tab
Again, these settings are generally self evident, they set limits on the ranges and spacing of bars which are
considered when bars are being selected to provide reinforcement which at least meets the minimum
requirements determined during design.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The Steel Bar Selection Tab
In this tab we start to apply more specific preferences which will affect the way in which bars are selected to meet
the As requirements determined in design.
Standard Pattern 2 shown above is currently the most commonly used option. Many of the other options under this
tab and also under the curtailments tab are more tuned to standard pattern 2. Later in this chapter we will look at
each of the patterns in turn and at some of the other options (particularly relating to this tab and the following
curtailment tab) in more detail.
The Curtailment Tab
In this tab we apply preferences as to how the reinforcement is curtailed. Although this is not under the Detailing
tab, these sorts of preferences are more traditionally applied by the detailer than the designer.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The Detailing Tab
In this tab all the preferences relate to detailing presentation options, i.e. changes here only relate to presentation
and not to the reinforcement selection.
The Layers Tab
Settings in this tab control the layering, line types etc. to be used in the DXF file, which can be loaded into most
general drafting packages.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Overview of Patterns
The concept of different basic patterns, which can then be optimised according to personal preference, is actually
derived from the publication Standard Method of Detailing Concrete published by the Institution of Structural
Engineers (UK) – August 1999. In the section on beam detailing (cl 5.4.20), two basic methods of detailing are
introduced:
• The Splice Bar Method – A pattern aimed at prefabrication of cages and minimisation of in situ steel fixing.
• The Alternative Method – A pattern more suited to in situ steel fixing.
Orion’s Patterns 1 and 2 are based on these suggestions.
Pattern 1 – The Splice Bar Method
The pattern is shown diagrammatically in the dialog above and in the typical detail below. The main attribute of this
pattern is that top and bottom bars all stop at each side of columns/supports and then splice bars are used to
maintain the required continuity through the support.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
All sorts of preferences can be applied to the pattern, generally this becomes a balance between complexity and
material efficiency, this concept is explored in detail later in this chapter.
Some general points worth noting at this stage are:
• There are various options to merge bars through supports and between spans. If the objective of using this
pattern is to create beam details such that discrete reinforcing cages for each beam can be constructed then
lifted into position the merging options should all be switched off.
• Currently the pattern does not support top span bars that extend to the face of the support (link hanger bars),
the top span bars will always stop short of the support. This may mean that the links towards each end of the
cage are not fixed as securely as might be desired during lifting. Some extra (un‐detailed) top bars may be
required.
In general it appears that this pattern has not yet been widely employed by Orion users, or if used it has generated
very little feedback. However since the pattern does encourage off‐site or low‐level prefabrication it offers the
possibility of reducing site risks by reducing work at height. There may even be financial benefits to be secured
from factory production of cages. It is considered possible that the use of this pattern may become more dominant
in the future.
Pattern 2 – The Alternative Method
The pattern is shown diagrammatically in the dialog above and in the typical detail below. Currently the top bars
are the same for this pattern and pattern 1. The bottom bars are different, the main difference being that they are
allowed to run through the support and lap directly with the bars in the adjacent span.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
material efficiency, this concept is explored in detail later in this chapter. Some general points worth noting at this
stage are:
• This pattern is the mostly commonly used and so many of the options/preferences introduced by user request
tend to be more applicable to this case. The Detailed Example and Comparisons are therefore most applicable
to this pattern.
• There are various options to merge bars through supports and between spans. Since this pattern is not
intended to lend itself to prefabrication these options are more applicable.
Pattern 3 – The Hanger Bar Method
The pattern is shown diagrammatically in the dialog above and in the typical detail below. Currently the bottom
bars are the same for this pattern and pattern 2. The top bars are different, the main difference being that (link)
hanger bars are used which can run through several spans. These bars provide any required span moment
resistance. Additional top reinforcement is then added in as necessary through the supports.
Note that the detailing option to Re‐Plot the Bars below the Beam has been used here to show how top hanger bars
extend through span 1 and into the middle of span 2.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
material efficiency, this concept is explored in detail later in this chapter.
Some general points worth noting at this stage are:
• Since small bars extend right through the support where additional bars are also added, this pattern may tend
to produce cluttered details at the support or even prove to be impractical from a spacing point of view.
As with pattern 1, it appears that this pattern has not yet been widely employed by Orion users, or if used it has
generated very little feedback.
The Bent‐Up Pattern Method
This pattern is used in high seismic regions and is only shown here for completeness. The current version of Orion
only supports the Turkish earthquake code (in the Turkish language version of Orion). In non‐seismic regions use of
this pattern is probably acceptable and is likely to produce a very robust structure, probably at the expense of both
reinforcement weight and on‐site construction complexity.
For now it is recommended that Orion users in non‐seismic regions do not use this pattern. In future releases when
other international seismic design codes begin to be supported this pattern will be more important.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Overview of Beam Bar Spacing
This section explains the implementation of spacing checks in Orion. The application of such checks in an
automated design is potentially a highly complex procedure, (as every steel selection affects every other steel
selection). The approach adopted in Orion is relatively simple, with the intention of enabling the smallest bars to
work at the maximum allowable spacing.
For each beam the spacing checks are applied at the six locations where the design checks are performed ‐ top left,
span and right and bottom left, span and right:
The Bar spacing controls on the Parameters tab then operate as follows:
Minimum Top and Bottom Steel Spacing
These two fields are used to set the minimum desirable steel bar spacing.
The values entered must be equal to or greater than the minimum allowable spacing values specified in the active
reinforcement code. If you use a bigger value than the minimum requirements of the code, the code values are still
used by the program whenever necessary.
Maximum Tension Steel Spacing
The value entered must be equal to or less than the calculated maximum spacing for bars in tension from the active
reinforcement code. Note that the calculated value depends upon the steel yield stress.
In an automated design Orion selects bottom span bars so as not to exceed this limit. The limit is not applied to the
bottom left and right support bars, although they are unlikely to exceed it in most cases. The one exception that can
occur is if, on the Steel Bar Selection > Steel Pattern tab you check the option Use 2nd Bottom Bars for 70% As. This
option is used to curtail this steel so only 30% of it runs to the support; as a result you end up with larger spacings
at the ends. The spacing at the supports will potentially exceed the maximum limit (if this is the case it is brought to
your attention by being highlighted in red). The assumption is that by checking the Use 2nd Bottom Bars for 70% As
option you are intending the spacings at supports to be increased in this way, hence the design is not rejected.
Maximum Compression Steel Spacing
In an automated design Orion selects top span bars so as not to exceed this limit (and by extension the top left and
right support bars are also spaced so as not to exceed the same limit).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Maximum Compression Steel Spacing ‐ Cantilever beams
If you examine a cantilever beam in interactive design you will find that the max spacing at the top span and the
cantilever end are shown in red as shown below:
This is because the compression steel spacing check is being applied to the ‘designed’ top span and cantilever end
bars. However, as there is no design requirement for bars at this location the check will always appear to fail. In this
situation, providing the spacing check for the top bars at the supported end is OK then the red text at these two
locations can be ignored; the top support bars are pulled through in the beam detail
Maximum Bar Spacing for Crack Control (EC2 only)
In addition to the above user specified checks, an extra spacing check is applied if the design code is set to EC2.
Both top and bottom bars are checked at span and support locations in accordance with Table 7.3N. This check is
much more dependent on steel stress and the loading conditions.
It is important to note that when the maximum spacing for crack control is exceeded the actual spacing is
highlighted in red but (providing the above user specified checks are satisfactory) the design is not rejected ‐
however, if the default tension and compression spacings from the EC2 template have been adopted it is highly
unlikely that this situation can arise.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Detailed Example and Comparisons
Overview
As noted in the above sections, Orion offers lots of options to first choose a basic reinforcement pattern and to then
apply preferences as to how bars are selected, curtailed and detailed. In general the application of any preference
means that you are making a choice between:
• A minimum reinforcement weight option where the details may be more complex and slightly more time
consuming (more costly) to construct.
• A more standardised/simplified detail where the weight of reinforcement is slightly higher, but construction
may be simplified.
Ultimately a judgement on the balance between standardisation and minimum weight is applied in the hope of
minimising the overall cost of construction. Traditionally engineers and detailers will apply their preferences in this
regard with very little quantitative knowledge on either side of the equation. Orion offers much more scope to
allow you to investigate the impact of different standardisation options so that you have the potential to make
more considered judgements.
In this section we will start by setting up a basic reinforcing pattern and find the weight of reinforcement that this
generates for an entire floor. We will then start to apply preferences one at a time, and in each case look at how
the details get simplified but also determine how much reinforcement weight gets added.
Note The procedure shown in this section can be applied to any Orion model (or more usually one
floor of a larger model) in a matter of minutes or perhaps hours (depending on model size).
Basic Setup
First we will get the design and detailing set up so that we have the base data on which further comparisons can be
made. The floor we will look at is shown on the next page.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
It is a reasonably simple layout of nearly 50 beams with typical spans in the region of 5 to 7 m. The applied factored
load is approximately 22 kN/m2.
The following subsections show the basic settings used for the initial design.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Design Tab
The above settings are reasonably standard and will not be changed during any of the subsequent comparisons.
Parameters Tab
In general the above settings are reasonably standard, but as will be shown in the subsequent comparisons,
adjusting or restricting the range of bars sizes to be used can influence the efficiency of the design.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Bar Selection Tab
On the Method sub‐tab, note that the steel bar area tolerance can be used to introduce an additional safety factor
during preliminary design.
On the Steel Pattern sub‐tab, Pattern 2 is selected and the options to use extra bars locally to enhance the support
and span moment capacities are both activated.
The options that are not checked add constraints that will add reinforcement weight.
The options in the Bent‐up Bars tab are only relevant to the Bent‐up Pattern.
The links options are set as shown above.
Once again the options that are not checked add constraints that will add reinforcement weight.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Curtailment Tab
On the Steel Bars sub‐tab shown above the option to lap the bottom bars outside the support is used. This seems
to be the preferred option of most Orion users as it tends to reduce clutter within the column. Although merging
will reduce reinforcement weight slightly these options are not activated yet, we will look at their effect later. The
other options that are not checked add constraints that will add reinforcement weight.
On the Steel Bars 2 sub‐tab shown above the options are not checked once again because adding these constraints
will add reinforcement weight.
Note that the minimum Tension Lap Factor. This factor works as follows:
• If you set the factor to 1.0, but for the lap in question the code minimum is 1.4, then we still use 1.4.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
• If you set the factor to 1.4, but for the lap in question the code minimum is 1.0, then your user over‐ride applies
‐ 1.4 gets used.
Options under the Bob Control sub tab shown above are self‐explanatory.
Note the setting for Min. Steel Bob Length shown above is 25 Dia. The actual minimum specified in BS 8666:2005
Table 2 varies depending on the bar diameter. For 10mm bars it is 12 Dia, for larger bar sizes it reduces further to
around 10 Dia. (Potentially then you might consider reducing this for greater economy.)
The Min Steel Bob Length is compared with the bob length that would be required to achieve the anchorage length,
(which for design to BS8110 is taken from Table 3.27). Note that the anchorage length is measured from the inside
face of the supporting member.
The settings shown above are not changed within the comparisons in the next section.
Detailing Tab
As noted earlier, the options under this tab only affect the style of the display and not the content. These options
will not be changed at all during the comparisons in the next section. The settings used for the comparisons are
shown here with some brief discussion. In general these might be considered a good set of suggested settings, but
it is best to experiment a little with all of these until you have optimised the detailing style to suit your own
preferences.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
On the General sub‐tab shown above note the option to include bar marks. If you want to see the bar mark appear
in the bar label in the usual style you must also ensure that the settings in the Graphical Editor Settings dialog are
set as shown below.
In the Beams sub‐tab shown below we are using the option to refer to beams by the axes (grids) that they lie on
and between.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Note It is probably more usual to activate the option to put the beam label below the detail, but this
option is automatically deactivated when one of the other options we will use is activated –
see later.
In the Sections sub‐tab shown above we are choosing to see 3 sections on every beam, this can be cut down. We
have also chosen to use the axis (grid) label as a prefix to every section and so we can restart the section numbers
on every axis and still have a unique label on every section. Since the axis labels are also used to reference the
beams everything can be easily cross‐referenced.
Note If you choose to reference the beams using the beam labels (the numbers generated as each
beam is added to the model), it would be better to add the beam label as a prefix to the
section.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In the Steel Bars and Links sub‐tab shown above we have chosen to Re‐plot the bars below the beam. This is an
extra option that goes beyond normal detailing practice, it is not suggested in detailing guides perhaps because the
extra drawing work it would generate would not be justified when the drawings are prepared by hand. In Orion you
get this extra/alternative presentation of the reinforcement detail for no extra effort – see below.
At first glance the above does not look standard and perhaps this puts some people off. However the exploded
reinforcement details provide extra (and clearer) information. We would suggest that many Orion users might
seriously consider using this option as a new way of providing better information to the site. Alternatively, as we
will see in the following section, Orion provides a schedule that gives the overall weight of reinforcement, but it is
not a traditional bar bending schedule. If a traditional schedule is to be prepared the details need to be taken off
the drawings that Orion prepares, the detailer who prepares the schedule might be able to do this more easily
using the exploded view of the reinforcement.
The options under the Side Bars and Dimensioning (shown above) sub‐tabs are all self‐evident and will not be
changed during the following comparisons.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Initial Design and Drawing Creation
Using the filter options to filter to the floor of interest, a design is then run of all the beams in the floor. During this
exercise care is taken to always reselect all bars during redesign.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Next a beam detail sheet is created for all the beams (i.e. all the beams on this floor) and the option to include a
quantity table is checked.
Clearly this sheet is not intended for printing, it is a quick way to get a lot of details into one DXF file which a
detailer can then organise onto several drawings for final editing and then issue.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Notice that at the top corner of the sheet there is a schedule that can be seen in partial close up below.
At the top there is a summary of reinforcement used, below that the data is broken down for each bar position
(each bar mark) in two columns. For this initial design of all the beams on this floor the key points to be noted are:
• Total Reinforcement Weight – 3692 kg
• Total bar marks used – 116
Effects of Applying Preferences
We will now go on to examine how the details are simplified as we apply a range of preferences. As we do so we
will also take note of how this adds reinforcement weight when compared with the above data for the initial
design.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Limiting the Bar Range
This option is probably under utilised. In this example we will squeeze the maximum main bar diameter which can
be used down to H20 from H25. Basically this means that in situations where 2 H25s were chosen we will now get
3 H20, etc. In addition there will be some saving due to shorter laps.
The weight of reinforcement decreases to 3390 kg and the number of bar marks increases to 123.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Note If you try to restrict the maximum bar size too much lots of beams will start to appear as failed
on the beam design summary – see below.
The beams have a utilisation ratio of less that 1 but are being shown as failing because the smaller bars (maximum
size H16) at closer spacing are failing checks on minimum spacing. If the failing beams are filtered out and
redesigned with the maximum bar size increased to H20 then in this model the weight of reinforcement can
actually be optimised to 3322 kg but at the expense of going back up to 141 bar marks.
Ideally you probably want to use a range where the vast majority of beams pass with one setting and then the
remainder can be filtered out and will pass in a second run with a different setting. The degree to which this would
be necessary would be quite structure dependent.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Merging Bars
This option is widely used. Where bar groups of the same size meet they will be merged into one bar group in
preference to lapping (provided the total bar length is less that the specified maximum bar length in the
parameters tab). Therefore this option will reduce weight due to savings in laps but will result in the handling and
fixing of longer bars on site.
In this example the weight of reinforcement decreases to 3358 kg and the number of bar marks decreases to 117.
As we continue to simplify the detailing, later in the exercise this option will start to have a greater effect.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Minimum Tension Lap
It is common practise to standardise laps. This can be done by changing the minimum Tension Lap Factor from 1.0
to 1.4. The result of this change is that where the code minimum of 1.0 could be used then your user over‐ride
applies ‐ 1.4 gets used throughout.
The weight of reinforcement increases to 3425 kg ‐ the number of bar marks remains the same at 117.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Stop Using 2nd Support and Span Bars
In the bar selection tab settings shown earlier, all the options relating to 2nd support and span bars were activated.
The view below shows the sort of detail that this produces.
Note the shorter top support bars and the extra bottom span bars laid in to the central section of the span. If the
options are now deactivated as shown below, the detailing becomes simpler.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Notice how only one group of top support bars is used and that in the span all the bars extend full length of the
span.
The weight of reinforcement increases to 3752 kg and the number of bar marks drops to 91.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Extend and Merge End Bars
In the bar curtailment tab above all the options to extend the top and bottom span bars right in to the support have
been activated. The options not to use any extra (shorter) bars locally at the end support are also activated. The
view below shows the simplified detail that results in an end span.
Comparing the view above with the view below (that was obtained when the end support curtailment options
were all unchecked):
• In the top view the H20 L bars in the top of the beam are extended and the short H16 span bars disappear.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
• the bars in the bottom of the beam are unchanged ‐ this option will not really have any effect on the bottom
bars unless there are significant wind/sway moments that cause more steel to be required at the support than
in the span.
The weight of reinforcement increases to 3797 kg and the number of bar marks drops to 85.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Extend Support Bars Symmetrically
In the bar curtailment tab above the option to extend the support bars symmetrically is activated. In the view
below you can see how support bars are extended to a proportion of the span length (default 0.3 L may be adjusted
to 0.25 L in line with BS8110 simplified detailing rules – the top span bars will by default be designed for the
maximum hogging moment in the central section of the beam – see the design tab settings.)
When the bars are extended symmetrically the detail is arguably simpler (as shown below) with less potential for
misplacement when fixing on site.
If this option were to be applied where the adjacent span lengths vary dramatically the result could be that the top
support bars run right through the short span. To prevent this a limit is applied to its use so that the bars are only
extended symmetrically when lengths vary by less than a given percentage (default 10%).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The weight of reinforcement is virtually unchanged at 3798 kg and the number of bar marks increases to 86.
Standardise Link Size
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
General Note – When Orion is asked to Design Link Spacing at Supports it will check the span region and each
support region. If it finds that the reinforcement required in either support region is the same as in the span region
those two regions will be merged. The example below shows this case.
In the links tab above two additional options have been activated:
• Select Symmetrical Links for Support Regions – This option means that when support regions are required at
both ends the bar size (but not the same spacing) used at each end will be the same.
• Same Bar Size at Support and Span – This option means that the same bar size (but not the same spacing) will
be used throughout the span of each beam.
In the view above you can see how the second of these settings has forced the use of H10 links throughout this
beam, but since the maximum link spacing is 300mm this just means extra reinforcement weight.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In the particular model being used here H8 bars were used everywhere, so the above two settings make no
difference to the total steel quantity.
The weight of reinforcement and the number of bar marks are unchanged (3798 kg and 86). On a different project
it is quite likely that applying these settings will have a significant effect on reinforcement weight.
Uniform Links
The option to Design Link Spacing at Supports is not checked.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In the view above you can see how one link size and spacing is now used throughout this span. Applying this
preference to this model causes a reasonably significant increase in reinforcement weight.
The weight of reinforcement increases to 3908 kg and the number of bar marks is still unchanged at 86.
Beam Grouping
It is common practise to standardise the detail of similar beams where ever possible. Orion’s Grouping feature can
detect similar beams automatically and group them together for you.
Using the automatic grouping option to group beam axes within the floor, axes 1 and 2 are detected as similar and
placed into a single group.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Axes 1 and 2 share the same detail.
Grouping will produce more standardised details at the cost of increase in weight.
In this example the effect is minimal because only two axes are grouped. The weight of reinforcement increases to
3910 kg and the number of bar marks decreases to 81.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Summary
In the detailed example in the previous section we have successively applied more and more bar selection and
curtailment settings preferences and recorded how these changes affect the total weight of reinforcement in an
entire floor. The following table summarises the findings.
No of Bar Total
Percentage Weight
Cumulative Adjustments Marks Weight
Added
Used kg
Starting Model 116 3692 Base Line
Limiting the Bar Range 123 3390 ‐8%
Merging Bars 117 3358 ‐9%
Standardise Laps 117 3425 ‐7%
Stop Using 2nd Support and Span Bars 91 3752 +2%
Extend and Merge End Bars 85 3797 +3%
Extend Support Bars Symmetrically 86 3798 +3%
Standardise Link Size 86 3798 +3%
Use Uniform Links 86 3908 +6%
Use Grouping 81 3910 +6%
We would suggest the main points to be drawn from this example are:
1. Most users will probably not have examined the possibilities of limiting the preferred range of bars used in
which case potential efficiencies may have been missed (in this case a saving of 4% in reinforcement weight).
2. If the weight after Limiting the Bar Range (3390 kg) were used as the base line figure then the net effect of
introducing all the standardisation/simplification up to and including the option to Standardise Link Size is:
• The number of bar marks reduces from 123 to 86 (a 30% reduction)
• The weight increases to 3798 kg (a 12% increase)
3. We would suggest that the option to use Uniform Links throughout is used cautiously; it can add a lot of weight.
4. If the bar range is not so limited, but all the other preferences up to the option to Standardise Link Size are still
applied, the total weight goes up from 3798 kg to:
• If T25s are allowed – 3948 kg (an extra 4%)
• If T32s are allowed – 3975 kg (an extra 5%)
Based on this example, the most important message is therefore the need to examine the effects of reducing the
maximum size of bar to be used in the design.
Finally, it is worth re‐emphasising that all of these sorts of judgements have traditionally been made on something
of a gut feel basis during the course of design and detailing. The automated procedures that Orion provides allow
you to investigate options, quantify effects, and optimise the design for any project in a matter of minutes or
perhaps an hour.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 19 : Column Design to BS8110
Chapter 19 Column Design to BS8110
Introduction
By default, Orion designs columns bent about a single axis, or bent about both axes using the code clauses given in
BS 8110‐1:1997: Part 1 Section 3.8.
The following table summarises the various stages of the BS8110 column design process:
1. Braced or unbraced? 3.8.1.5
Calculate effective height using Part 2 of
2. 3.8.1.6
the code
3. Check slenderness 3.8.1.3
4. Classify as short or slender 3.8.1.3
5. If slender ‐ calculate Madd 3.8.3.1
6. Calculate minimum moments 3.8.2.4
7a. If braced ‐ calculate design moments 3.8.3.2
7b. If unbraced ‐ calculate design moments 3.8.3.7
If using the BS8110 design method ‐
Calculate equivalent uni‐axial design
8. moments 3.8.4.5
(If using the Bi‐Axial design method ‐
skip this stage)
9. Member design 3.8.4
As indicated in the table, the program provides two design methods.
The default method applies Cl 3.8.4.5 to convert bi‐axial moments into an equivalent uni‐axial design moment.
Alternatively if the bi‐axial design method is selected, the bi‐axial moments calculated in step 7 are fed directly into
the member design stage and a more rigorous solution technique developed from first principles is adopted. This
can produce some economy, however because the neutral axis will lie on an incline the results of the design
process will be more difficult to cross check.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
For poly‐line columns, as shown below, the bi‐axial design method will always be adopted. .
The choice of design method is set via the column design settings dialog shown below..
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The BS8110 Column Design Process
1. Braced or unbraced ‐ Cl 3.8.1.5
Globally, columns will be considered as braced if this option has been selected in the Building Parameters.
Individual columns can have their braced/unbraced status modified within the Column Interactive Design, via the
Slenderness tab as shown below:
For walls, the braced/unbraced status is applied in the same way as it is for columns. However, it should be noted
that walls can always be considered as braced along their major axis (i.e dir 1).
2. Calculate effective height‐ Cl 3.8.1.6
The effective height is determined from the equation:
le = lo
A rigorous assessment of the effective length is undertaken using the formulae given in 2.5 of BS 8110‐2:1985.
Perhaps surprisingly, this can often result in a greater effective length than is determined from the Tables 3.19 and
3.20 of BS 8110‐1:1997.
Note: The beta value determined by part 2 can be edited and replaced by the value from the tables if required.
3. Check slenderness limits‐ Cl 3.8.1.7 & 3.8.1.8
An error message is displayed during the interactive design if the slenderness limit has been exceeded
4. Classify as short or slender‐ Cl 3.8.1.3
Columns and walls are considered as short when both the ratios lex/h and ley / b are less than 15 (braced) and 10
(unbraced), otherwise they are slender.
5. If slender ‐ calculate M_add‐ Cl 3.8.3.1
In order to calculate the additional moment induced in the column it is required that factor K be determined.
Although the code allows for K to be conservatively taken as 1.0, Orion calculates K using the equation 33 in the
code:
K = (Nuz ‐ N) / (Nuz ‐ Nbal) <= 1
The calculation of Asrequired is itself an iterative process and K is re‐calculated at every iteration.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The following assumptions are applied to ensure the calculation of K remains slightly conservative.
Calc of Nuz ‐
equation has two parts:
Steel ‐ 0.87*fy*Asc ‐ in this equation Orion uses Asc required (since it is illogical that we should be able to fail a
section by providing more steel than is required).
Concrete ‐ 0.45*fcu*Ac ‐ in this equation the net concrete area is used.
(Ac = gross area ‐ Asc)
Calc of Nbal
The code indicates that this is based on 0.25*fcu*b*d. (d = eff depth). However, with the aim of keeping Nbal
large (hence making the calculation of K more conservative), actually uses the gross concrete area here.
6. Calculate minimum moments ‐ Cl 3.8.2.4
The minimum design moment is calculated in both directions taking the design ultimate axial load acting at a
minimum eccentricity as per Cl 3.8.2.4.
7a. If braced, calculate design moments about each axis ‐ Cl 3.8.3.2
The design moment is calculated in both directions as the greatest of: M2, Mi+Madd, M1+Madd/2 or, emin*N
Where:
M1 M2 and Madd are as defined in figure 3.20
Mi = 0.4 M1 + 0.6 M2 >= 0.4 M2
7b. If unbraced, calculate design moments about each axis ‐ Cl 3.8.3.7
The design moment is calculated in both directions as per figure 3.21
8. Calculate equivalent uni‐axial design moments ‐ Cl 3.8.4.5
Because there will always be at least a minimum moment acting in both directions, for rectangular columns the
design moment will always be determined from equations 40 and 41 in the code.
For Mx/h' >= My/b'
Mx' = Mx + (beta * h'/ b' * My)
For Mx/h' < My/b'
My' = My + (beta * b'/ h' * Mx)
For circular columns the moments in the two directions are resolved.
2 2
M =  Mx + My 
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
9. Member Design ‐ Cl 3.8.4
With the design axial load and design moment established, the program determines the required steel area using
the BS8110 stress block. The neutral axis of the cross section is determined and a bar size and spacing obtained to
provide sufficient moment capacity.
Each design combination is considered and the one that results in the largest steel area requirement is selected as
being critical.
Note If the minimum area of steel is satisfactory for every combination, the program will record
combination 1 as being critical, ( irrespective of the relative magnitude of loads in each
combiation) .
Three methods of bar selection are available:
Fixed bar layout — The bar locations are defined by the user and the program determines the bar size
required
Bar Spacing Maximisation — The program determines the bar size and spacing with the aim to maximise the
spacing. This is normally the preferred option.
Bar Size Minimisation — The program determines the bar size and spacing with the aim to minimise the bar
size.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The maximum axial load is checked against Cl 3.8.4.3 or Cl 3.8.4.4. The program defaults to the more conservative
capacity determined by Cl 3.8.4.4. The clause used can be changed via the BS8110 tab of the column design settings
as shown:
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Worked Examples
The Design Model
The example model Doc_Example_4 is opened and saved to a new name (so as not to destroy the original
example). The copied model is then adjusted so that its storey height is increased to 5.5m and it is then
re‐analysed. In this model the steel grade is 460 and the steel material factor is 1.15. Bar diameters of 13mm are
used and 12mm bar diameters are excluded. The minimum link diameter is set to 10mm. Note however, the actual
design process would be identical irrespective of which steel grade and material factor and bar diameters are used.
Column Design Settings
The column design settings initially adopted are as shown:
Design Parameters
Steel Bars ‐ Layout/Selection
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Steel Bars ‐ Longitudinal Steel
Steel Bars ‐ Links
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Braced Rectangular Column Example
Column 1C8 will be used to demonstrate the design process for a rectangular column.
column dimension in direction 1b1 = 500 mm
column dimension in direction 2b2 = 250 mm
The clear height of column in the two directions takes account of the beams framing in to the top of the column.
Lo1 = 5500mm ‐ 500mm = 5000 mm
Lo2 = 5500mm ‐ 400mm = 5100 mm
Note As shown on the design screen above, if only 3 bars are placed in the x direction the default
clear bar spacing limit of 200mm (as specified in the Column Design Settings) would be slightly
exceeded. In the worked examples the Max. Column Steel Bar Spacing has been relaxed to
205mm in order that the above bar layout can be used.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Performing the Design
To perform the calculations click the Design button. This will design the column for all the highlighted design
combinations. Design combination 1 is found to be critical and is highlighted in red in the table as shown below.
Each stage of this design process will now examined in detail.
In this example the column has been defined as braced in both directions. This can be confirmed by clicking on the
Slenderness tab.
The effective length factors 1 and 2 that have been calculated are also displayed on the Slenderness tab as shown.
These effective length factors are calculated as follows:
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In direction 1
Beam stiffness at top of column
L = 5500mm b= 250mm d = 500mm
kb1 =b*d3/(12* L) = 473484.8 mm3
Column stiffness
kc1 = b2*b13/(12 * Lo1) = 520833.3 mm3
 calculation using the formulae given in 2.5 of BS 8110‐2:1985
c2 = kc1 / kb1 = 1.100
c1 = 1 (fixed base is defined in this example)
cmin = min ( c1, c2 ) =1.000
eq3 = 0.7 +0.05 *( c1 + c2) = 0.805
eq4 = 0.85 +0.05 *( cmin) = 0.900
1 = min (eq3,eq4) = 0.805
In direction 2
Beam stiffness at top of column
L =4250mm b= 250mm d = 400mm
kb1 =b*d3/(12* L) = 313725.5 mm3
Column stiffness
kc1 = b1*b23/(12* Lo1) = 130208.3 mm3
 Calculation using the formulae given in 2.5 of BS 8110‐2:1985
c2 = kc1 / kb1 = 0.415
c1 = 1 (fixed base is defined in this example)
cmin = min ( c1, c2 ) =0.415
eq3 = 0.7 +0.05 *( c1 + c2) = 0.771
eq4 = 0.85 +0.05 *( cmin) = 0.871
2 = min (eq3,eq4) = 0.771
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Effective member lengths
Le1 = 1 * Lo1= 4025 mm
Le2 = 2 * Lo2 = 3931 mm
3. Check slenderness limits ‐ Cl 3.8.1.7 & 3.8.1.8
60 * 250mm = 15000mn OK
4. Classify as short or slender ‐ Cl 3.8.1.3
The classification is shown on the Column Reinforcement Design dialog.
5. If slender ‐ calculate Madd‐ Cl 3.8.3.1
Depending on the classification the a and Madd values have been calculated accordingly and are displayed on the
Slenderness tab.
In direction 1
a1 = 1/2000 * ( 1 * Lo1 /b1)2 = 0.032
column is not slender, hence
Madd1 = 0 kNm
In direction 2
a2 = 1/2000 * ( 2 * Lo2 /b2)2 = 0.123
Column is slender, hence:
Calculate Madd
K = (Nuz ‐ N) / (Nuz ‐ Nbal) <= 1
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Applied Axial Load, N = 151.8 kN
col dimension (in direction under consideration), h = 500 mm
column width, b2 = 250 mm
concrete grade, fcu = 40 N/mm2
steel grade, fy = 460 N/mm2
material factor for steel , s = 1.150
area of steel requiredAs_req = 654.1 mm2
Nuz = 0.45 * fcu * (b1*b2 ‐ As_req )+ 0.87 * fy * As_req = 2500.0 kN
Nbal = 0.25 * fcu * (b1*b2)= 1250.0 kN
(Nuz ‐ N) / (Nuz ‐ Nbal) = 1.879
Hence
K = 1
Au = ( a2 * K * b2) = 30.8 mm
Additional MomentMadd2 = N * Au = 4.68 kNm
These are shown on the Column Reinforcement Design dialog.
Minimum eccentricity1 = min (0.05* h, 20mm) = 20mm
Minimum eccentricity2 = min (0.05* b, 20mm) = 12.5mm
M1min = N * 20mm = 3.04 kNm
M2min = N * 12.5mm = 1.90 kNm
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
7. Calculate design moments about each axis ‐ Cl 3.8.3.2
These are also shown on the Column Reinforcement Design dialog.
In direction 1
Smaller end momentM11 = ‐28.20 kNm
Larger end momentM21 = 57.41 kNm
Mi1 = 0.4 M11 + 0.6 M21 >= 0.4 M21
Mi1 = 0.4*M11 + 0.6*M21 = 23.17 kNm
0.4 * M21 = 22.96 kNm
Hence
Mi1 = 23.17 kNm
Md1eff = Max (abs(M21),abs(Mi1+Madd1),abs(M11+Madd1/2), M1min) = 57.41 kNm
In direction 2
Smaller end momentM12 = 7.85 kNm
Larger end momentM22 = ‐15.77 kNm
Mi2 = 0.4 * M12 + 0.6* M22 >= 0.4 M21
Mi2 = 0.4*M12 + 0.6*M22 = ‐6.32 kNm
0.4 * M22 = ‐6.31 kNm
Hence
Mi2 = ‐6.32 kNm
Md2eff = Max (abs(M22),abs(Mi2 +Madd2),abs(M12+Madd2/2), M2min) = 15.77 kNm
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The effective design moment is calculated from equations 40 and 41
longitudinal bar dia = 13mm
cover = 20mm
links = 10mm
Mx = Md2eff = 15.77 kNm
My = Md1eff = 57.41 kNm
h' = b2 ‐ cover ‐ links ‐ dia/2 = 213.5 mm
b' = b1 ‐ cover ‐ links ‐ dia/2 = 463.5 mm
Mx/h' = 73.9 kN
My/b' =123.9 kN
Mx/h' < My/b' hence
My' = My + (  * b'/ h' * Mx)
N/(b1*b2*fcu ) = 0.030
 = 0.961
My' = My + (  * b'/ h' * Mx) = 90.3 kNm
Design forces
N = 151.75kN
My' = 90.39kNm
Mx' = 0.00kNm
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Solution determined by Orion:
Distance to neutral axisYbar = 64.84 mm
Area of steel requiredAsreq = 650.8 mm2
Area of steel providedAsprov = 796.4 mm2
Reinforcement in Section
X1 = cover +links + dia/2 = 36.5 mm
X2= 500mm /2 = 250.0 mm
X3= 500mm ‐ cover ‐ links ‐ dia/2 = 463.5 mm
Ybar > X1, hence bars at X1 are in compression
Calculate maximum axial load ‐ Cl 3.8.4.3 or Cl 3.8.4.4.
In this example the design ultimate axial load is determined using Cl. 3.8.4.3.
Nmax = 0.4*fcu * b1 * b2 + 0.75 * Asprov* fy = 2274.8 kN > N OK
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Cross check of the above solution
The solution can be cross checked using two basic equations given in standard texts. For example: W.H. Mosley and
J.H. Bungey, Reinforced Concrete Design, (MacMillan)
1. Resolving forces vertically:
N = FCC + FST + FSC
Where:
Fcc is Concrete compressive force
FST is Steel tensile force
FSC is Steel compressive force
2. Taking moments about mid‐depth of section (should equate to zero):
The applied moment My' must be balanced by the moment of resistance of the forces developed within the cross
section.
Resolving forces vertically:
N = FCC + FST + FSC
Bars in tension are fully stressed, hence
Total Tensile force in bars at X2 and X3
FST = ‐4*Asreq/6 * 460N/mm2 /1.15 = ‐173.56kN
Compressive force in concrete, using the BS8110 rectangular stress block
FCC = 0.67/1.5 * fcu * (0.9*Ybar*h) = 260.67 kN
Total compressive force in bars at X1
FSC = N ‐ FST ‐ FCC = 64.69 kN
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Taking moments about mid‐depth of section (should equate to zero):
Distance to centre of concrete compression force XCC = 500mm/2 ‐ 0.9*Ybar/2 = 220.8 mm
Distance to centre of steel compression force XSC =500mm/2 ‐ X1= 213.5 mm
Distance to centre of steel tension force XST =(X3+X2)/2 ‐500mm/2 = 106.8 mm
My' ‐ XCC *FCC + XST*FST ‐ XSC*FSC = 0.5 kNm
The right hand side of the above equation should equate to zero to within an acceptable tolerance. To determine if
this result is OK, recalculate the actual value of My' required for this to be the case and then compare the two.
My'actual = XCC *FCC ‐ XST*FST + XSC*FSC = 89.90 kNm
My' / My'actual = 1.005 OK
Note that the above cross check shows that if the Asrequired was actually the amount provided then the required
capacity is just sufficient.
In all cases Asprov will exceed Asreq to some degree. Orion reports the ratio: Asreq/Asprov as the utilisation ratio.
Utilisation Ratio Asreq /Asprov = 0.82
It is important to appreciate that 82% utilisation does not mean that 18% more load can be added. As is shown on
the interaction diagram for this column, a great deal more axial load could be added.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Bi‐Axial Design Method Example
From the Column Design Settings dialog, change the design method to bi‐axial.
Then re‐design column 1C8 once more.
It is important to note that design stages 1 to 7 are identical to the previous example, hence the effective design
moments about each axis are unchanged:
Instead of converting these to a uni‐axial design moment (as per stage 8), an exact solution is determined using the
bi‐axial moments.
The result is that the area of steel required drops from 650.8mm2 to 328.8mm2.
Thus, this design method can obviously be seen to provide a more economical solution. The drawback is that
because the neutral axis is no longer parallel to either face of the column verification is more difficult. The cross
checks required do not lend themselves to hand calculation.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Braced Circular Column Example
From the Column Design Settings dialog, change the design method to BS8110‐Cl.3.8.4.5..
Column 1C12 will be used to demonstrate the design process for a circular column.
Click on the Parameters button and change to fixed bar layout.
This will force the design to adopt the number of bars shown in the 'Qty' cell of the above table. In this example we
will use 8 bars in the design, (Qty = 8). When the design is performed, the bar sizes will be adjusted to obtain an
economic solution based on this layout.
column diameterD = 500 mm
The clear height of column in the two directions takes account of the beams framing in to the top of the column.
Lo1 = 5500mm ‐ 500mm = 5000mm
Lo2 = 5500mm ‐ 400mm = 5100mm
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
All the columns in this building should be considered as braced. If the column is designed as such, the effective
length factors in the two directions are calculated as:
1 = 0.846
2 = 0.900
The values of 1 and 2 are calculated in the same way as in the previous rectangular column example. The full
calculations will therefore not be repeated here.
The column slenderness is calculated as:
Le1 = 1 * Lo1= 4230 mm
Le2 = 2 * Lo2 = 4590 mm
60 * D = 30000 mm OK
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
5. If slender ‐ calculate Madd‐ Cl 3.8.3.1
Short hence:
Additional MomentMadd1 = 0 kNm
Additional MomentMadd2 = 0 kNm
Applied Axial Load, N = 243.4 kN
Minimum eccentricity, emin = min (0.05* D, 20mm) = 20 mm
Mmin = N * emin = 4.87 kNm
Note that when braced, combination 2 is identified as the critical combination.
7. Calculate design moments about each axis ‐ Cl 3.8.3.2
In direction 1
As the column is short the effective moment is simply:
Md1eff = Max (abs(M21), Mmin) = 40.56 kNm
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In direction 2
Md2eff = Max (abs(M22), Mmin) = 80.60 kNm
Mx' = squareroot (Mx2 + My2) = 90.23 kNm
Solution determined by
Area of steel requiredAs = 520.3 mm2
Area of steel providedAs_prov = 1061.9 mm2
No. of bars providednbar = 8
Before cross checking this solution for equilibrium, we will first make the column unbraced.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Unbraced Circular Column Example
The previous calculations are now repeated with the column specified as unbraced.
To change the column to unbraced, uncheck the 'Dir 1 and Dir 2 braced' boxes on the slenderness tab as shown
below and the click the Design button:
When unbraced, the effective length factors in the two directions for this column change to:
1 = 1.439
2 = 1.684
When considered unbraced, the column slenderness is calculated as:
Le1 = 1 * Lo1= 7195 mm
Le2 = 2 * Lo2 = 8588 mm
60 * D = 30000 mm OK
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
5. If slender ‐ calculate Madd ‐ Cl 3.8.3.1
In direction 1
a1 = 1/2000 * ( 1 * Lo1 /D)2 = 0.104
In direction 2
a2 = 1/2000 * ( 2 * Lo2 /D)2 = 0.148
Calculate Madd
K = (Nuz ‐ N) / (Nuz ‐ Nbal) <= 1
Note that now the column is unbraced, combination 1 has become the most critical combination and hence the
value of N has changed in the calculation of K below.
Applied Axial LoadN = 285.1 kN
Area of sectionA = pi * (D/2)2 =196349.5 mm2
concrete gradefcu = 40 N/mm2
steel gradefy = 460 N/mm2
material factor for steel s = 1.150
area of steel requiredAsreq = 845.1 mm2
Nuz = 0.45 * fcu * (A ‐ Asreq )+ 0.87 * fy * Asreq = 3857.3 kN
Nbal = 0.25 * fcu * A = 1963.5 kN
(Nuz ‐ N) / (Nuz ‐ Nbal) = 1.886
Hence K = 1
Au1 = ( a1 * K * D) = 51.8 mm
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Additional MomentMadd1 = N * Au1 = 14.76 kNm
Au2 = ( a2 * K * D) = 73.8 mm
Additional MomentMadd2 = N * Au2 = 21.03 kNm
Minimum eccentricity emin = min (0.05* D, 20mm) = 20 mm
Mmin = N * emin = 5.70 kNm
7. Calculate unbraced design moments about each axis ‐ Cl 3.8.3.2
In direction 1
Smaller end momentM11 = 0.00 kNm
Md1eff = Max (abs(M21+Madd1),abs(M11+Madd1), Mmin) = 14.76 kNm
In direction 2
Md2eff = Max (abs(M22+Madd2),abs(M12+Madd2), M2min) = 117.24 kNm
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Mx' = squareroot (Mx2 + My2) = 118.17 kNm
Design forces
N = 285.056kN
My' = 118.17kNm
Solution determined by Orion:
Area of steel requiredAsreq = 845.1 mm2
Area of steel providedAsprov = 1061.9 mm2
No. of bars providednbar = 8
Area of steel required per barAs/nbar = 81.8 mm2
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Cross check of the above solution
Reinforcement in Section
column diameter D = 500 mm
bar diameter dia = 13 mm
cover = 20 mm
links = 10mm
Bar distances from mid depth
X1 = D/2 ‐ cover ‐ dia/2 = 213.5 mm
X2= squareroot (X12 /2) = 151.0 mm
X3= 0mm
X4 = X2= 250mm
X5 = X1 = 214 mm
Ybar > (250mm ‐X2), hence bars at X1 and X2 are in compression
Resolving forces vertically:
N = FCC + FST + FSC
Where:
FCC is Concrete compressive force
FST is Steel tensile force
FSC is Steel compressive force
Bars in tension are fully stressed, hence
Total Tensile force in bars at X3, X4 and X5
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
FST = ‐5* Asreq/nbar * 460N/mm2 /1.15 = ‐211.3kN
Tensile force per bar at X3, X4 and X5
FSTbar = FST /5 = ‐42.3kN
The area of concrete in compression (the shaded area above) is determined from the equation:
A = R2 tan‐1 (squareroot (R/r)2 ‐1) ‐ r (squareroot (R2 ‐ r2)
R = D/2 = 250 mm
r = R ‐ Ybar = 146 mm
A = 29568 mm2
Compressive force in concrete, using the BS8110 rectangular stress block
FCC = 0.67/1.5 * fcu * (0.9*A) = 475.5 kN
Total compressive force in bars at X1and X2
FSC = N ‐ FST ‐ FCC = 20.9 kN
Compressive force per bar at X1 and X2
FSCbar = FSC /3 = 7.0 kN
Taking moments about mid‐depth of section (should equate to zero):
For this hand calculation it has been assumed that the centre of concrete compression force is at 2Ybar/3 from the
top of the section. The software would of course perform a rigourous calculation to determine the exact position of
the centre of concrete compression force.
Distance to centre of compression force XCC = R ‐ 2*Ybar/3 = 180.7 mm
My'actual = XCC *FCC + X1*FSCbar + 2*X2*FSCbar ‐ 2*X4*FSTbar ‐ X5*FSTbar = 121.0 kNm
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
My' / My'actual = 0.98 OK
Utilisation Ratio Asreq /Asprov = 0.80 OK
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 20 : Wall Design and Detailing
Chapter 20 Wall Design and Detailing
Introduction
Orion designs walls in the same way as columns, therefore for general details of the design process refer to the
previous chapter ‐ Column Design to BS8110.
In this chapter additional aspects of the process that are unique to walls are examined.
Conservatism in the design method
The analysis phase described in the chapter Wall Modelling Considerations determines Wall Panel Design Forces.
Each wall panel is then independently designed for these forces. Therefore, when Orion designs a wall panel it is
designing a discrete rectangular section.
In the cases of Core Walls (where there are several interconnected panels), this design approach will be
conservative for two reasons:
1. Core walls introduce flanges, and just as for beams these flanges will enhance the bending capacity when they
are considered (and when they act in compression). The concrete stress block develops over a reduced depth
and so a bigger lever arm develops between the concrete and steel forces, hence greater moment capacity.
2. As is shown below, the detailing where panels overlap must be manually edited so that the sum of the
requirements for each panel are provided in the overlapping zone. Where the critical design case determining
the requirements in each panel is different it will be conservative to provide the sum of the two.
Wall Design and Detailing Options
As with columns, preferences can be applied to the design and there are a number of aspects of this that are worth
highlighting.
Design With End Zones
Choosing to use End Zones makes a significant difference to the way reinforcement is provided within the section ‐
heavier bars will be concentrated in a zone at each end of the wall and smaller bars will be used in the mid section.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In the column/wall design settings you can choose between shear wall reinforcing styles – shear walls with or
without End Zones.
The column application plan view below shows the reinforcing for wall panels when end zones are requested. Note
that there is significant overlapping of the bars where the panels overlap.
As noted earlier, this is one of the areas where manual adjustment of the detailing is required. The detailer needs
to look at the total reinforcement required in the overlapping zone and provide the same total in a revised corner
detail. For example, at the corner of walls 1 and 2, wall 1 has 7 T20 bars and wall 2 has 13 T16, the detailer might
change this to 10 T25. As noted previously this summing of the individual panel requirements is a safe engineering
approach.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Design Without End Zones
The view above shows the column application plan view after redesigning all the walls having changed to the
design setting where End Zones are not considered.
When end zones are not used the same bar size will be used throughout the length of the wall with the exception
of the end corner bars which may be larger.
Once again there is a certain amount of overlapping reinforcing between wall panels that needs to be rationalised,
but this tends to be a simpler process where end zones are not used.
Should I use End Zones?
The subject of zoned reinforcement (or boundary elements) tends to be dealt with under the heading of
Earthquake Resistance in building codes and texts. However it is clearly logical that zoning of reinforcement in the
ends of wall panels is a valid and potentially more efficient approach to wall design wherever lateral loading is
generating significant in‐plane moments.
The main reason why the option not to consider end zones becomes more efficient at lower loading levels is that
minimum steel requirements start to dominate. Within Orion, when zoned reinforcement is used then minimum
reinforcing requirements within the zones are applied. These minimum levels mean that the overall minimum
reinforcing requirement for the wall is around 0.52%. When end zones are not used the standard BS8110 code limit
of 0.4% is applied.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Note Even when end zones are not used Orion will still tend to suggest a larger bar size at the
extreme ends of the wall. Sometimes this might be needed because it increases the supplied
steel just enough to exceed the minimum steel requirement. Sometimes it may also help to
satisfy detailing (maximum spacing) requirements across the end of the wall. However Orion
will often provide larger bars here for no other reason than it is considered Good Practice. In
the case of intersecting walls it is particularly felt that this is good practice. However, it is
acknowledged that some engineers would prefer to use a single main bar size throughout and
the option to set this preference will be added in a future release of Orion. For now it is
possible to interactively adjust the sizes of the end bars to achieve this objective.
The British Standard does not really acknowledge or provide guidance on End Zones. It is written from the point of
view that walls will be quite uniformly reinforced, hence many Orion users will prefer to use the option NOT to
consider end zones. As is demonstrated in the above example, for many structures this will actually give a lesser
reinforcing requirement. The only argument that can be set against this approach is in the case where the walls are
actually resisting significant in‐plane moments. In such cases not only does the end zone approach become more
efficient, it also puts the steel where the strain is and so potentially limits cracking more efficiently.
Plain Wall Design
In the column/wall design settings you can choose to Use Plain Wall Design where it is applicable.
BS8110 cl 1.3.4.7 defines a plain wall as one that contains either no reinforcement, or insufficient to satisfy the
criteria in cl 3.12.5. Any reinforcement supplied is ignored when considering the strength of the wall. Where no
reinforcement is required in the design of the wall cl 3.9.4.19 indicates that if reinforcement is provided at all, it
should be at least 0.25% (for Gr460/500 steel) and 0.3% (for Gr250 steel)
Therefore, if design can be based on no reinforcement and this indicates a capacity in excess of that required for the
design combinations, a lower minimum reinforcement level can be used.
Note Where reinforcement is less than 2% design will automatically exclude ties.
Orion will determine if a wall section is in compression throughout for each applied load combination. When
compression throughout is proven then design will utilise this lower minimum steel provision.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The "detailed design report" option includes a statement that wall is in compression throughout and that plain wall
design applies as shown below:
Although plain wall design applies, the capacity of the section (and hence the utilisation ratios) are still based on
the provided area of steel.
The final calculations, interaction curves, etc relate to design of the section using the actual supplied
reinforcement. These calculations also show the NA position calculated for the critical combination.
This NA position effectively reflects the theoretical capacity moment for the given axial load and the required
reinforcement. Therefore this may often indicate that the NA lies in the section hence implying that the section is
not in compression throughout ‐ when designed as a plain wall this is a false implication and can be ignored.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Option to use Single Layer of Reinforcement
This option may be appropriate in thinner walls. In the column/wall design settings you can use the Max. Width for
Single Layer Walls box to specify the maximum thickness of wall in which single layer of reinforcement is to be
used.
The single layer may be either mesh or loose bars and it may be used in conjunction with end zone reinforcement if
required.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Design with Mesh Reinforcement
The option to consider use of mesh reinforcement in walls is available and initially controlled via Material Property
Settings.
In the column/wall design settings you can then set preferences relating to mesh reinforcement..
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Note the Min. Wall Length for Mesh Steel ‐ a wall of this length or greater will attempt to adopt mesh
reinforcement ‐ provided you have chosen to use a fabric for wall web steel in the material properties dialog.
You should set the mesh width to that of the standard panel width you intend to use.
The "Revert to Loose Bar" Option
The option to use loose bars (shown checked above) applies during the main steel design routines when mesh has
been specified. If no mesh can be found with sufficient main steel reinforcement to meet the design requirements
then the wall is set to use loose bar and re‐designed on that basis.
How the "Revert to Loose Bar" Option Works
In the properties for any wall, the Web Steel (Longitudinal) property will initially be set as "default". The default
setting results in loose bars being used if the wall in question is shorter than the minimum length for mesh steel
with mesh steel being used for longer walls. However, in the latter case, if it is determined that no available mesh is
adequate and the "Revert to Loose Bar" option has been checked then the “Web Steel” property for the wall be
re‐set to a relevant non‐default value as shown below.
Once this is done then loose bar will always be selected for that wall until the property is re‐set back to default.
Re‐setting these properties would be tedious if done interactively so when running batch design we have added the
option to "Try Using Mesh in all Walls". When this is checked the properties are re‐set to default before the batch
design and so if the design forces have changed mesh could be selected in a wall where loose bar has previously
been selected.
Limitation of "Revert to Loose Bar" Option
The design will not revert to loose bars in the following cases:
1. If the main bars of a mesh provide sufficient main reinforcement but subsequently it is found that lateral bars
do not provide sufficient transverse reinforcement, then the design will show the wall as failed and will not
automatically revert to using loose bar.
Generally this possibility only applies to B series meshes in thicker walls (as indicated by the * in the Minimum
Reinforcement Requirement tables below).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
2. If the main bars of a mesh provide sufficient main reinforcement to meet combined Axial load and bending, but
subsequently it is found that the limiting axial load is not sufficient, then the design will show the wall as failed
and will not automatically revert to using loose bar. This requires walls to be subject to unusually high axial
loads and should occur very rarely.
Column Steel Details View
The view below shows the column steel details view for a wall with mesh reinforcement. This view is obtained from
right mouse click menu within the column application plan view.
Mesh and Minimum Reinforcement Requirements
It is important to appreciate that standard meshes will not be suitable in all walls, in many cases meshes will not
even provide the required minimum levels of reinforcement required by the code. The tables below should help
clarify this.
• Plain walls ‐ min horizontal and vertical reinforcement is 0.25% (basically an anti‐crack provision)
• Reinforced Walls ‐ min vertical reinforcement increases to 0.4%.
These minimums dictate the extent to which meshes can ever be used in wall design.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Minimum Meshes in Walls with a Single Layer of Reinforcement
Wall
Plain Walls Reinforced Walls
Thickness
A series mesh B series mesh A series mesh B series mesh
125mm A393 * ‐ *
150mm A393 * ‐ *
175mm ‐ * ‐ *
200mm ‐ * ‐ *
Minimum Meshes in Walls with a Double Layer of Reinforcement
Wall
Plain Walls Reinforced Walls
Thickness
A series mesh B series mesh A series mesh B series mesh
125mm A193 B196 B283
150mm A193 B196 A393 B385
175mm A252 B503 A393 B503
200mm A252 B503 ‐ B503
250mm A393 * ‐ *
300mm A393 * ‐ *
* In these cases no mesh is adequate because no mesh provides sufficient horizontal reinforcement to meet the
required minimum percentage.
Points to Consider
Based on the above it is clear that:
1. If using the option to consider a single layer of reinforcement in thinner walls then only an A393 mesh is ever
suitable in this situation and this only applies when the plain wall design option is selected and applicable.
Therefore:
• If B‐Series mesh is specified mesh will never be selected.
• If the plain wall design option is not activated then mesh will never be selected.
• If the setting for maximum thickness of single layer walls is set to anything much greater than 150mm, then
meshes will never be selected in the thicker walls. (It is considered that this setting should generally be set
to 150mm or less)
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
2. For walls thicker than 150mm where double layer reinforcement is being used:
• If the plain wall design option is activated then potentially A‐series meshes can be selected in quite thick
walls.
• However, where plain wall design is not selected or not applicable, then A series meshes will not be picked
in any of the thicker walls.
• If B‐series meshes are selected then mesh will never be picked in walls thicker than 200mm. (This is
because no B mesh satisfies the min horizontal reinforcement requirement for thicker walls).
3. Where no mesh is suitable the design will either fail (which could be many/most walls in a building) or design
may revert to using loose bar if that option has been activated.
Which Mesh Type is Better?
Currently you are required to choose either A‐Series or B‐Series meshes, they cannot be mixed within one project.
In the specific case where wall loads dictate that significantly more that min reinforcement is required then the
B‐series is better. However, this is not necessarily the most common condition for walls. If B‐series is selected then
there is the possibility that many wall designs will fail (because of limitation noted above). Additionally there is no
point in attempting to consider single layer reinforcement while also selecting B‐Series mesh as the default
reinforcement because all walls thin enough for single layer reinforcement to apply will simply fail (again because
of limitation noted above).
Since A‐Series meshes are not greatly affected by the limitation (and hence a design can be achieved for most walls
regardless of thickness) it is considered that in general it will be preferable to use the A‐Series meshes. Where plain
wall design applies these meshes are also more cost effective since they do not over‐provide reinforcement in the
vertical direction simply in order to achieve min reinforcement in the horizontal direction.
Overview of Possible Reinforcement Arrangements
The options shown above allow for a large range of reinforcement configurations to be considered automatically. If
a single layer option is selected (as highlighted above) it will only be used in walls thinner than a specified max
thickness (shown as 150mm above), for thicker walls a double layer of mesh will be used.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The example below demonstrates the range of design outcomes that are possible..
A simple model is created with 8 walls (as above) set with lengths and widths such that different design results are
expected:
• Walls 1 ‐ 4 are 150 mm thick ‐ with max thickness of single layer walls set to 150 mm we expect to see single
layer reinforcement in all these walls. Walls 4 ‐ 8 are 175 thick so double layer reinforcement is used.
• Min length of wall in which mesh can be used is set to 1300mm ‐ so we only ever expect to see mesh in walls
3,4,7 and 8.
• W1 (900x150) and W5 (1050x175) ‐ are both short walls ‐ setting allows use of end zones in short walls.
• W4 is identical size to W3 ‐ the loads in this wall have been increased in order to demonstrate that when mesh
is specified as the default preference, the design will revert to using loose bars if the largest available mesh is
not adequate. (Same applies to W8 and W7)
The view above shows design result when plain wall design is not active and when loose bar is set as the general
preference ‐ a successful design is achieved for all walls. (Note that the reinforcement requirement in wall 8
exceeds 2% resulting in the automatic introduction of tie bars in the wall.)
The view below shows how design changes if the plain walls design option is activated.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
NOTE: Review of the designs at this point confirms that plain wall design is applicable to walls 1,2,3,5,6,7 and
hence the steel supplied in these walls drops as shown above.
Design using Type A Mesh (not considering plain wall design option)
Refer to the Mesh and Minimum Reinforcement Requirements table earlier in this chapter‐ this indicates that the
heaviest mesh (A393) will not be sufficient in single layer walls, but that A393 may be OK as double layer mesh in
the 175 thick walls.
Change default material to A‐mesh and run design.
Unexpectedly in 1W3 A393 is selected, this is achieved because heavy end bars are selected to increase the area of
steel provided to beyond 0.4%, this would not be possible on longer walls.
In walls W4 and W8 the heaviest available meshes are not adequate and so the design has successfully reverted to
the use of loose bar.
Design using Type A Mesh (considering plain wall design option)
Refer to the Mesh and Minimum Reinforcement Requirements table earlier in this chapter‐ this indicates that
(A393) would be OK as single layer mesh in the 150 thick walls if plain wall design applies.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Check the option to consider plain wall design and re‐design.
In W3, A393 mesh is still used, but the end bar sizes reduce.
In W7, A252 is now used instead of A393.
Design using Type B Mesh (considering plain wall design option)
Refer to the Mesh and Minimum Reinforcement Requirements table earlier in this chapter ‐ this indicates that
B‐mesh will never be suitable in any single layer wall. B503 may be OK as double layer mesh in the 175 thick walls.
Check the option to consider plain wall design and re‐design.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
As expected design fails in walls W3 and W4. For reasons stated earlier (Limitations of Revert to Loose Bar Option),
since these failures relate to the failure of any mesh to provide minimum horizontal steel, we do not expect the
design to revert to use of loose bar in this case.
Limitation Copy/Paste Bars will not work
Note that if you copy bars from a wall with mesh reinforcement to a wall that has loose bar reinforcement (or vice
versa) the procedure will result in a confused status where check designs fail and the walls need to be re‐designed.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 21 : Foundation Design
Chapter 21 Foundation Design
Introduction
In addition to building superstructure analysis and design, Orion includes foundation design calculations for the
following:
• Pad Footings
• Combined Pad Footings,
• Pile Caps
• Combined Pile Caps,
• Strip Footings
• Combined Strip Footings,
• Raft (or Mat) foundations
• Piled Rafts
Foundation Design Settings
The allowable soil stress and the coefficient of subgrade reaction are set in the Building > Parameters – Foundations
tab.
Some further detailed preferences are set on the General, Design and Pile Base tabs in Settings > Foundation
Design Settings.
Note in particular the Allowable Soil Stress Ultimate Strength Factor ‐ in Orion the foundation design procedures
assume that the permissible bearing pressure is used in conjunction with ultimate loads.
Hence if the allowable soil stress is given as 200 kN/m2 the program then checks factored combinations against a
factored permissible bearing pressure of 1.4 x*200 = 280 kN/m2. This is usually conservative.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Foundation Depth
The foundation depth is set up globally for the whole structure a via the Edit Storey dialog.
In order to create detail drawings including starter bars, a reasonable (non zero) foundation depth is required.
Although the foundation depth is added onto the column length displayed in the 3D window, it does not effect the
column design length.
A column kicker depth can be set on the Column Design Settings – Detail Drawings ‐ General tab.
If different footing heights have been specified in the same model, the undersides are all set out at the foundation
depth ‐ the topsides will thus vary in elevation.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The Foundation Forces Table
This table displays the foundation design forces for each column and wall. To display the table, right click on either
the Pad & Pile Bases, or Strip Footings branch of the Structure Tree ‐ these branches are only available when the
current storey is St00.
The forces and moments displayed are initially those determined from the analysis. If required they can be revised
in one of two ways:
Applying a Force Override — To apply a Force Override simply overtype the displayed value with the override
value. Columns which have had a force override applied are indicated by a tick in the Edited checkbox. If you
remove the tick the value determined from the analysis is restored.
Added Axial Load — If you require, an extra axial load can be added to the value displayed. The extra load is
entered in the Added Axial Load column. If you want to add the same amount of axial load to all columns this
can be achieved by clicking the 'Apply added axial load to all columns' button. This feature can be particularly
useful for piled foundations.
Note If the loads are edited via either of the above methods, the revised values are the ones
displayed on the plan view at foundation level.
Combining Columns and Walls for Shared Foundation Design
It is possible to group columns/walls together so that their combined action is supported by a single foundation.
Grouping of columns/walls in this way enables the design of:
• Combined Pad Footings
• Combined Strip Footings
• Pilecaps supporting multiple columns/walls
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
To combine multiple columns and walls
1. Display the foundation level, (ST00) in the Plan View.
2. Select the columns and/or walls that are to be part of the group.
3. From the right click menu select Combine Selected Columns and Walls for Shared Foundation Design.
4. The members are now grouped together for the purposes of foundation design.
To ungroup columns and walls
1. Select any member in the group (this selects all members of the group).
2. From the right click menu select Remove Foundation Column Grouping.
3. The members are now ungrouped.
Calculation of the Combined Footing Design Forces
The axial forces in the individual group members are summed together to provide the design axial force for the
footing.
The design moment is calculated as the sum of the moments in the individual columns, plus an additional moment
due to eccentricity of the axial force in each member from the geometric centroid of the group.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In the example above two pinned columns are supported on a single pad base. The combined design forces for load
combination 1 are thus:
N = 19.4kN + 345.1kN = 364.5kN
Mx = 345.1kN x 0.9m ‐ 19.4kN x 0.9m = 293.1 kNm
My = 0 kNm
Creating a Typical Pad/Pile Footing for Multiple Foundations
If you insert multiple pad footings or pile caps simultaneously, you are given the option to create a standard footing
at all locations which will then be designed for the worst case loading.
To create a typical footing
2. Select the columns and/or walls required
3. Display the right click menu and select Insert Pad Base or Insert Pile Cap.
4. Check the option Create Typical Footing for the Selected Columns then click OK
Pad Footings
The footing is sized to ensure the soil is not over‐stressed. If the applied moment is greater in one direction, it will
usually be rectangular, although you can restrict the design to a square footing if you prefer.
Reinforcement to resist bending is determined in each direction and punching and shear checks are performed.
If required, more than one column can be supported by a single footing. For details refer to the section on
Combined Pad Footings
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Defining a Pad Footing
The requirements/procedure for defining a pad base are in the help system. The steps involved are summarised
below:
1. A valid building analysis (or FE chase down procedure) must have been completed so that the relevant
foundation design loads exist. Column reactions are simply fed into the pad base design module, there is no
more complex interaction of superstructure and the foundation analysis models.
3. Select the column under which the pad base will be inserted. More than one column may be selected. In that
case, the calculated pad base (based on the effects transferred from all the selected columns) can optionally be
inserted to all selected columns.
4. Display the right click menu and select the Insert Pad Base option.
5. The Pad Base Properties menu will be displayed. Check the parameters in this menu and then press the
Calculate button to design the footing.
6. Use the up arrow buttons located to the right of the "Lx" and "Ly” fields to decide on the desired footing size.
7. Press OK to close the Pad Base Design dialog, then press OK once more to complete the insertion of the footing.
The base is then displayed on the Plan View as shown above.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Pad Footing Details
Footing elevations and sections can be created as Foundation Detail Sheets. as shown below.
Combined Pad Footings
A combined pad footing can be used when two (or more) columns are close enough to each other to be supported
on a single foundation.
Before a combined pad footing can be defined you must first group the columns together so that their combined
action is applied to the footing. For details of how to group the members together see the earlier section
Combining Columns and Walls for Shared Foundation Design.
Once the columns have been grouped together you simply proceed to define the footing in an usual way. see the
earlier section Defining a Pad Footing.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Pile Caps
Defining a Pile Cap
The requirements/procedure for defining a pile cap are summarised below:
foundation design loads exist. Column reactions are simply fed into the pad base design module, there is no
more complex interaction of superstructure and the foundation analysis models.
3. Select the column under which the pile cap will be inserted. More than one column may be selected. In that
case, the calculated pile cap (based on the effects transferred from all the selected columns) will optionally be
inserted to all selected columns.
4. Display the right click menu and select the Insert Pile Cap option.
5. The Pile Cap Design dialog will be displayed as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Define the pile and pile cap data as required. The pile cap dimensions can be calculated automatically ‐ if
entered manually the initial values may be rounded up or down during the analysis process, (if this happens try
modifying the initial value and analysing again).
Note The reinforcement defined here is neither designed or checked in any way
6. On the Loads tab you can use the existing combination data or input manually defined loads. Surcharge is also
applied on this tab.
7. On the Parameters tab you can specify the minimum number of piles, spacing requirements and other design
parameters.
Note that the max pile spacing multiplier only applies to walls , so as to achieve efficient transfer of load
through the pile cap.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
If you check the box to allow a tapered footing, then the corners will be chamfered (as illustrated by the footing
shown on the right at the start of this section).
8. Press the Calculate button to design the pile cap.
9. A report is displayed as shown below. If required, a column forces table and the pile axial forces can be added
to this report ‐ options for this exist on the Parameters tab.
10. The number of piles used can be adjusted ‘on the fly’ by clicking the (+)Increase or (‐)Decrease buttons. It is not
possible to decrease to less than the original number of piles calculated. In other words, (+)Decrease can only
be used to reduce an (+)Increase.
11. Click OK to insert of the Pile Cap. The footing is then displayed on the Plan View.
Basic Design Procedure
The basic design process involves a simple procedure:
1. Set number of piles (Start with 1 pile)
2. Find a valid pile arrangement (setting out) for current number of piles
3. Check the pile arrangement ‐ if piles fail then go back to step 1 and increase number of piles by 1, keep iterating
until a number of piles is determined that passes.
Limitations
Within the above apparently simple process there are a number of limitations to be considered:
1. Piles are positioned on a fixed spacing basis, spacing is not adjusted (increased) to resist bending, the number
of piles is always increased.
2. Pile groups are centred on the supported member ‐ No offset grouping to resist applied moments.
3. No ability to model ground beam systems in such a way that analysis is performed and additional loads are
introduced to the pile caps.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
4. Design relates to pile selection only, no design is carried out for the pile cap:
• No shear checks or cap depth checks
• No reinforcement design of any type.
5. Design is not based on Working Load Combinations. The Pile Capacities are factored during the design so they
can be used in conjunction with ultimate loads as follows:
• The pile SWL is defined during input.
• Design is carried out using factored combinations with a factor applied to SWL (default 1.4).
The Factor applied to SWL is specified on the General tab in Foundation Design Settings.
Note There is potential for a significant error if you incorrectly provide the ultimate design capacity
of the pile (which may be 3 times SWL)
Larger Pile Groups
Larger pile groups are achieved automatically as shown below.
Currently there is no way to apply preferences to prevent non‐preferred layouts from being proposed and no way
to interactively define an alternative preferred layout.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Pile Cap Details
Pile cap elevations and sections can be created as Foundation Detail Sheets. as shown below.
Combined Pile Caps
A combined pile cap can be used when two (or more) columns are close enough to each other to be supported on a
single foundation.
Before a combined pile cap can be defined you must first group the columns together so that their combined action
is applied to the footing. For details of how to group the members together see the earlier section Combining
Columns and Walls for Shared Foundation Design.
Once the columns have been grouped together you simply proceed to define the pile cap in the usual way. see the
earlier section Defining a Pile Cap.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Strip Footings
For the most part strip foundation design is relatively straightforward. However, Orion offers some options in
relation to strip analysis and the existence of such options can introduce uncertainty in some cases. This section
therefore focuses primarily on the strip analysis options that are offered during the course of strip analysis and
design.
Defining a Strip Footing
The requirements/procedure for defining a strip are in the help system. In this example we will consider a strip
running between columns C2, C5, C7 and C9 as shown above. The steps involved are as follows:
foundation design loads exist. Column reactions are simply fed into the foundation design modules, there is no
more complex interaction of superstructure and foundation analysis models.
2. Beams are defined between the columns along this line (as shown in the previous screen shot) Note that these
beams will be required to resist the longitudinal moments developed along the strip. Hence the sizing of these
beams needs to be realistic and getting the size right may prove to be an iterative and interactive procedure –
we are starting here with a beam strip 800 wide and 800 deep.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
3. The 3 beams need to be selected and then a right click exposes the option to Insert Strip Footing and the strip
footing design dialog appears as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
4. The strip design is performed, as discussed in more detail in the following sections. When the design is saved
the strip appears on the Plan view at foundation level as shown below
5. The foundation beam design is then carried out in a similar manner to the design of superstructure beams, but
it is a 2 stage process:
a. First use the Create/Update Footing Beam Records option as shown above. (This transfers the strip analysis
results data into the beam design module.)
b. Then run the Foundation Beams design option. In this case only one strip has been defined and so the
beam design dialog appears as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
6. You can design the foundation beams interactively or in a batch mode in exactly the same way as you would for
beams in the supported building and drawings can be created/exported in the usual way.
7. Elevations and sections are created as shown above, it is probably best to activate the option to label bars
within the section since this means that the cantilever footing steel is also noted up as shown below. It is also
suggested that it is better to use the detailing option to Re‐plot the bars below the beam resulting in a display
as shown above. The foundation beam detailing is not yet as automated as the mains structure beam detailing
and this ensures that the maximum amount of information is readily available when final edits are made.
We will now examine some of the options and the design philosophy in a little more detail.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Strip Analysis Options
There are various options at this point –the left and right extension length and the footing depth are not
determined or optimised automatically during design these could be set now or reset after an initial design is
examined.
The assumed design philosophy is that a footing cantilevers out to each side of the 800 by 800 longitudinal beam,
in the example above the assumed initial depth for this footing is 400 mm. If the footing width is set to zero a
minimum width will then be calculated automatically.
Note that the axial loads listed in the table of design information relate to one currently selected load combination.
A design carried out at this point is for the one selected combination only. To design for all combinations the design
envelope option must be checked. We will look at this later, for now we will make analysis comparisons based on
the G+Q*F combination only.
Adjusting the Subgrade Coefficient
The analysis method accounts for the assumed elastic deformation of the soil and the model used is that of a beam
supported by springs. The springs model the stiffness of the soil which you define by setting the subgrade
coefficient. The subgrade coefficient defined in the building parameters is displayed here and can be edited.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When you click on design a tabbed dialog is displayed, on the first tab calculations are shown for review/printing,
on the second tab diagrams are displayed for review/printing. The diagrams for this strip are initially as shown
below.
Note that the bearing pressures are varying, with peak pressures occurring under the load positions.
The permissible bearing pressure was given as 200kN/m2. Since the applied column loads are factored the design is
aiming to keep the peak bearing pressure below a factored allowable pressure which is conservatively assumed to
be 1.4*200 = 280kN/m2. (The 1.4 factor can be adjusted in the foundation settings.)
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In this initial run this has been slightly exceeded, but as is shown below, some degree of manual optimisation is
always required.
When the initial design is reviewed you can see that the footing width is not a practical sort of number – you might
change this to something like 3000mm. You might also think that the 1m extensions are a bit long, let’s reduce
those to 800mm. The revised diagrams are then as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
You may not be confident of what value to define for the sub‐grade coefficient, the table below indicates the
potential range of values that might be considered.
We can easily examine the effect of changing this coefficient, the diagram below shows the result when this strip is
rechecked with the coefficient reduced from 80000 to 8000 .
This results in a more uniform bearing pressure with lower peak values. By assuming weaker soil springs we are in
effect considering the footing as being relatively more rigid and so the pressures get spread more evenly. If the
design were carried out on this basis a narrower strip footing could be used. But notice that the span bending
moments in the strip have increased significantly while the moments under the columns have reduced. In fact this
result is probably more akin to the results achieved in traditional hand calculations.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In practice you may want to design for a range of possibilities, this can be achieved automatically in Orion by using
the step option as shown below.
We have asked the design to consider a range of subgrade coefficients from 8000 to 80000 and the resulting
diagrams for this one load combination are then as shown below.
The bearing pressure diagram shows a single case and indicates the maximum bearing pressure from all the cases
considered. The diagrams indicate show the envelope of design conditions that have been developed.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Enveloping all Load Combinations
As noted earlier it would be normal to do this from the outset, the Design Envelope option is now checked as shown
below.
For this example this results in the following revised diagrams:
As noted previously the pressure diagram displayed at this point is not necessarily the most critical one, but the
maximum pressure is shown. The envelope diagrams for design forces have now widened to include the worst
cases for all load combinations and the required range of sub‐grade coefficients.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In practice you may not want to consider such an extreme range of sub‐grade coefficients as have been used here,
but the points to note are:
• Higher sub‐grade coefficients result in higher local bearing pressures and hence potentially wider footings.
• Lower sub‐grade coefficients result in some higher strip design forces which may be closer to those that you
would expect on the basis of traditional hand calculations.
Note General Limitation – The analysis never attempts to take any account of column base moments
transverse to the strip direction. It is anticipated that such forces will not be allowed to
develop where the intention is to use a strip footing – i.e. it is assumed that the column bases
will have been defined as pinned or that the moments are nominal. If you wish to consider
wide strips where biaxial moments get applied from the columns the FE foundation design
option should be used.
Strip Footing Design
We will continue with the same example used to demonstrate the analysis options in the previous section.
The above cross section illustrates the two aspects of the strip design:
1. The longitudinal beam that spreads the column point loads along the length of the strip – in this case an 800 x
800 beam.
2. The cantilever edges that in effect spread the line load developed by the beam out to the edges of the strip.
Within Orion this part is referred to as the footing design.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When the design is run from Strip Footing dialog shown above, the results dialog appears as shown below.
In the previous section we looked at the results shown on the diagrams tab, here we are looking at the numerical
results. In the previous section we saw that the maximum bearing pressure was established as 278 kN/m2. This
peak figure is repeated in the numerical results above.
The design of the steel required in the cantilever footing is carried out at this point. Note that the cantilever is
considered as the distance from the face of the beam and not the centre‐line of the strip and that the peak bearing
pressure is used. For the bar size defined in the input dialog, the minimum spacing requirement is determined. You
can change the bar size and the footing depth until you have an arrangement that you are comfortable with. These
sorts of changes do not affect the bearing pressures.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Beam Design
Scrolling further down the strip design results you will see the design forces for the beam being reported at the
end, but the beam design is not carried out at this point. These are the forces that are transferred to the beam
design module when you Create/Update Footing Beam Records. You may notice that the design moments noted
above for transfer are not identical to the moments indicated on the envelope diagram in the previous section. This
is because alternative Minimum Moments are also calculated and shown in the results at the top of the data shown
above.
If the minimum moments exceed the analytical results then they are used in design. The minimum moments are
based on average bearing pressures (W) and are calculated as follows:
• Minimum Span Moment = WL2/16 (where L is the span length)
• Minimum Support Moment = WL2/12 (where L is the longer of the 2 spans to each side of the support in
question)
In cases with multiple equal spans these minimums are unlikely to dominate significantly if at all. In cases with
unequal spans they may be more significant. In this example the minimum moments are greater in several cases.
Application of such minimums may be regarded as good practice since they ensure that the foundation strip is
more capable of dealing with loading variations (pattern loads) and variable ground conditions (soft spots). If you
feel that these minimums are introducing too much conservatism you can adjust them in the Foundation Design
Settings dialog shown at the start of this chapter.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Having transferred the design forces the beam is designed in the same way as superstructure beams. Design reports
are available (as shown below) as are options to print/export reinforcement details.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Creating Wide Strip Footings
Strip footings with deep stiffening beams are more structurally efficient but may be considered more costly to
construct in some circumstances. Many engineers prefer wide rectangular strip footings as indicated above,
particularly for lower rise construction.
Wide strip footings can be generated in Orion, but the following should be noted:
1. You need to start by defining wide beams between the supported columns, and then select and insert the strip
footing in the usual way.
2. These strips tend to be shallow and therefore flexible – so you may find a wide variation of bearing pressures
on stiffer ground (when the sub‐grade coefficient is higher).
3. When you do the design you do not want a cantilever footing to be introduced, you will probably need to keep
changing the beam width until an acceptable solution is achieved.
4. Links are introduced to satisfy longitudinal shear only. As with superstructure beams there is a maximum of 3
links (6 legs) across the section. For wide footings this may not be sufficient.
5. No design across the width of the strip is carried out – i.e. the links are not designed to resist any transverse
bending.
6. Punching Shear under the columns may be a more critical design condition than shear across the full section of
the beam. This it is NOT checked at all.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Combined Strip Footings
A combined strip footing is commonly used when two lines of closely spaced columns are themselves close enough
to each other to be supported on a single foundation. An example might be underneath movement joints exist in
the superstructure.
Defining a Combined Strip Footing
Before a combined strip footing can be defined you are required to first of all group the adjacent columns together
so that their combined action is applied to the footing. For details of how to group the members together see the
section Combining Columns and Walls for Shared Foundation Design earlier in this chapter.
Once each group of columns along the strip has been defined you simply proceed to define the footing in an
identical way to an ordinary strip footing. see the previous section Defining a Strip Footing.
In summary the steps involved are as follows:
foundation design loads exist. Grouped column reactions are simply passed into the foundation design module,
there is no more complex interaction of superstructure and foundation analysis models.
2. Beams are defined between the columns along the line joining the grouped columns. Note that these beams
will be required to resist the longitudinal moments developed along the strip. Hence the sizing of these beams
needs to be realistic and getting the size right may prove to be an iterative and interactive procedure.
3. The beams need to all be selected and then a right click exposes the option to Insert Strip Footing and the strip
footing design dialog appears.
Analysis and Design
For details of the analysis and design procedure, refer to the notes in the earlier section Strip Footings.
Raft (or Mat) foundations
This topic is discussed within the standard training course notes, available in PDF format alongside this document
and accessed via the link below:
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Piled Rafts
Defining a Piled Raft
The requirements/procedure for defining a piled raft are summarised below:
foundation design loads exist. Column reactions are simply fed into the FE raft foundation analysis module,
there is no more complex interaction of superstructure and the foundation analysis models.
3. Select the slabs under which the piles will be inserted. More than one slab may be selected.
4. Display the right click menu and select the Insert Pile option.
5. Click on the desired setting out point in the Plan View.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
6. The Pile Properties dialog will be displayed as shown below.
Define the pile and pile spacing data as required. A preview of the resulting pile layout is displayed in the Plan
View.
7. Click OK to create the raft.
Piled Raft Design
After completing the placement of piles in the raft, in order to determine the individual pile loads the next stage is
to perform an FE analysis of the foundation.
Note that when preparing the FE model of the foundation you are given the option to ignore the bearing capacity
of soil.
On completion of the FE analysis the calculated pile loads and pass/fail statuses are displayed in the FE
post‐processor by first selecting Soil Pressure from the Effects menu and then clicking the Pile Loads button on the
Elements tab of the toolbar. The pile loads are checked against the (factored) pile safe working loads.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Where load exceeds capacity the pile node is shown red, where it is greater than 90% the pile node is orange, for <
90 % the pile node is green.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 22 : Design of RC Beam‐Column Joints to HK Code of Practice 2004
Chapter 22 Design of RC Beam‐Column Joints to HK Code of Practice 2004
Introduction
Orion designs the reinforced concrete beam‐column joints in accordance to Hong Kong Code of Practice 2004,
clause 6.8. The references on which this feature is based on are :
• Ref 1 : Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2004
• Ref 2 : Concrete Code Handbook : An Explanatory Handbook to the Code of Practice for Structural User of
Concrete 2004
• Ref 3 : Technical Paper by Simon H F Wong & JS Kuang, On Design of RC Beam‐column Joints to Hong Kong
Concrete Code 2004, Paper T0765‐200812. The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Transactions, Vol 16, No 3,
pp48‐55.
The Joint Shear Check is carried out for all columns in a building and a full report is generated when you click on the
option shown above in the reports tab of the Building Analysis dialogue. It can only be run when beams and column
design is complete.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When looking at any column design and when the HK code is active a joint shear check button appears on the
dialogue ‐ clicking this displays the joint design result for the joint at the top of the selected column (as shown
below).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Visual Status Confirmation
When the HK code is active activate VIM and there is a new option to view Joint shear check results. This option
triggers a design check for the entire building and then displays the results, in both plan and 3D views as shown
below.
\z
\z
For each joint there are 3 possible design outcomes:
• OK ‐ no additional reinforcement required
• OK ‐ but additional joint reinforcement required
• Fail (it is not possible to adequately reinforce the joint.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
General principles/procedure
The general procedure for checking the design of a beam‐column joint is indicated in the table below and is then
expanded upon in the Design procedure.
1 Is the column braced in the direction being considered? Ref 3
Braced column ‐ Calculate joint shear force in accordance to section 1.1 of the
design procedure.
2a Ref 3
Assumption: one beam is assumed to be hogging, the other sagging. Both
beams are assumed to be at their ultimate states.
Unbraced column ‐ Calculate joint shear force in accordance with section 1.2.
2b Assumption: One beam is assumed to be in hogging, the other sagging. Both Ref 3
beams are assumed to be at their ultimate limit states
Calculate the applied horizontal joint shear stress and the limiting value of the Ref 1
3 horizontal joint shear stress in accordance with section 2. Cl 6.8.1.3
4 Is the Applied horizontal joint shear stress more than the limiting value?
If Yes (in step 4)
4a Orion report this and take no further action. User would have to increase the Ref 1
size of columns and/or size of the beam
If No (in step 4)
Ref 1
4b Calculate the area of horizontal shear reinforcement required in accordance
Cl 6.8.1.5
with section 3.
Calculate the area of vertical shear reinforcement required in accordance with Ref 1
5 section 4. Cl 6.8.1.6
Information required & gathered
All the required information is automatically extracted from the Orion model, the analysis results and from the
design of column and beams.
For every beam/column joint within the structure the following information is gathered:
• Column dimensions
• Storey height above and below the joint.
• Minimum column axial load from the ultimate loadcases (this could be ‐ve (tension))
• Is the joint two or three dimensional i.e. are the framing beams in a single vertical plane or in two or more
vertical planes.
• Stability category in each direction i.e. braced or unbraced column.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
• Number/arrangement of beams framing into the joint e.g. an internal 3D joint will have at least one beam in
each direction, a 2D edge joint will have only beams in one direction. Refer to the figure below for examples of
typical 2D & 3D joints.
Design procedure
1. Determine the horizontal design shear force across the joint
For a three dimensional joint the horizontal design shear force across the joint will have to be determined for the
two orthogonal directions.
1.1 Braced column
The maximum joint shear force occurs when there is a maximum out‐of‐balance moment from the beams framing
into the column. For the case of a braced column i.e. where there will always be a hogging moment on the beams
on either side of the joint (except in highly unusual loading scenarios) the maximum shear force is obtained by
assuming that the moment on one side of the joint is such that the tensile stress in the reinforcement reaches a
value in excess of its yield strength (see below for further explanation) with the moment on the opposite side taken
as the minimum ultimate moment from the analysis. It is considered that this will lead to a conservative design
since it is unlikely that the maximum moment will occur on one side of the joint in combination with the minimum
on the other.
Calculate the ultimate tension force in the beam top reinforcing bars
Tb = Asfy
where As = area of top reinforcement
 = overstrength factor applied to reinforcement yield stress (see below)
fy = reinforcement yield stress
Note ‐ the overstrength factor is applied to take account of strain‐hardening and the associated increase in yield
stress. In the paper by Wong and Kuang (Ref 3) it is suggested that for non‐seismic design i.e. where only limited
ductility is required a value of 1.0 is adequate but that for seismic design a value of 1.25 should be adopted.
However, the handbook to the Hong Kong code of practice (Ref 2) suggests that a value of 1.25 should be used for
both seismic and non‐seismic design. It seems that different engineers and checking authorities are accepting
different values for this factor in the range from 0.87 to 1.25. For this reason it is the engineer's responsibility to set
this factor (in the column design settings) as they deem fit for each project.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
For the beam on each side of the joint, for equilibrium the compression force in the concrete must equal the
tension force in the reinforcement so
Tb = 0.67fcub(0.9x)
where b = beam width
x = neutral axis depth
Calculate the depth to the neutral axis on each side by rearranging this equation
x = Tb / (0.603fcub)
Calculate the ultimate moment capacity of the top reinforcing bars on both sides of the joint
Side 1 — Mu1 = Tb(d1 ‐ 0.9x1/2)
Side 2 — Mu2 = Tb(d2 ‐ 0.9x2/2)
Calculate the maximum out‐of‐balance moment in the two clockwise senses
Sense a — Mob,a = Mu1 ‐ Mmin2
Sense b — Mob,b = Mu2 ‐ Mmin1
where Mmin2 = minimum analysis hogging moment from side 2
Mmin1 = minimum analysis hogging moment from side 1
Calculate the column shear force associated with the two out‐of‐balance moments
Vcol,a = Mob,a / [(lu + ll)/2]
Vcol,b = Mob,b / [(lu + ll)/2]
where lu = upper storey height
ll = lower storey height
Calculate the tension force in the top reinforcing bars due to the minimum analysis hogging moment on each side
of the joint i.e. referring to the diagram below which is an elevation of a typical beam‐column joint arrangement Cb1
= Tb1 and Cb2 = Tb2 etc.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Joint forces for an unbraced column
K1 = Mmin1/(fcub1d12)
K2 = Mmin2/(fcub2d22)
z1 = d1[0.5 + squareroot(0.25 ‐ K1/0.9)] but <= 0.95d1
z2 = d2[0.5 + squareroot(0.25 ‐ K2/0.9)] but <= 0.95d2
Tb,min1 = Mmin1/z1
Tb,min2 = Mmin2/z2
The calculation of Tb,min1 & Tb,min2 assumes that no compression reinforcement is required for the moments Mmin1 &
Mmin2 i.e. that K1 & K2 are less than the limiting value. This is probably a reasonable assumption since these are for
the minimum ultimate analysis moments which are likely to be significantly less than the maximum ultimate
analysis moments. If compression reinforcement is actually required the lever arms, z1 and z2 will be
under‐estimated, the reinforcement tension forces Tb,min1 & Tb,min2 will be over‐estimated and so the maximum
horizontal joint shear force will be slightly under‐estimated.
Calculate the maximum horizontal joint shear force
Vjh = max(Tb ‐ Tb,min1 ‐ Vcol,b , Tb ‐ Tb,min2 ‐ Vcol,a)
1.2 Unbraced column
For the case of an unbraced column, the maximum joint shear force will again occur when there is a maximum
out‐of‐balance moment from the beams framing into the column. Load combinations involving sway of the frame
may result in a hogging moment occurring on the beam on one side of the joint and a sagging moment on the
beam on the other side. The maximum shear force is therefore obtained by assuming that the hogging moment on
one side is such that the tensile stress in the top reinforcement has a value in excess of its yield strength and the
sagging moment on the opposite side results in the bottom reinforcement having a tensile stress in excess of its
yield strength.
Calculate the ultimate tension force in the beam top reinforcing bars on each side of the joint
Tb,t1 = Tb,t2 = Asfy
As before it is recommended that the overstrength factor, , be assigned the value of 1.25.
Calculate the tension force in the bottom reinforcement on both sides of the joint
Tb,b1 = As,b1fy
Tb,b2 = As,b2fy
where As,b1 = area of bottom reinforcement on side 1
As,b2 = area of bottom reinforcement on side 2
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Calculate the depth to the neutral axis for both the top and bottom reinforcement being in tension for both sides of
the joint
Top tension side 1 — xt1 = Tb,t1 / (0.603fcub1)
Top tension side 2 — xt2 = Tb,t2 / (0.603fcub2)
Btm tension side 1 — xb1 = Tb,b1 / (0.603fcub1)
Btm tension side 2 — xb2 = Tb,b2 / (0.603fcub2)
Calculate the ultimate moment capacity for both the top and bottom reinforcing bars being in tension for both
sides of the joint
Top tension side 1 — Mu,t1 = Tb,t1(dt1 ‐ 0.9xt1/2)
Top tension side 2 — Mu,t2 = Tb,t2(dt2 ‐ 0.9xt2/2)
Btm tension side 1 — Mu,b1 = Tb,b1(db1 ‐ 0.9xb1/2)
Btm tension side 2 — Mu,b2 = Tb,b2(db2 ‐ 0.9xb2/2)
where dt1, dt2, db1 & db2 are effective depths of top and btm reinft on both sides of joint
Calculate the maximum out‐of‐balance moment in the two clockwise senses
Sense a — Mob,a = Mu,t1 + Mu,b2
Sense b — Mob,b = Mu,t2 + Mu,b1
Calculate the column shear force associated with the two out‐of‐balance moments
Vcol,a = Mob,a / [(lu + ll)/2]
Vcol,b = Mob,b / [(lu + ll)/2]
where lu = upper storey height
ll = lower storey height
Calculate the maximum horizontal joint shear force
Vjh = max(Tb,t1 + Tb,b2 ‐ Vcol,a, Tb,t2 + Tb,b1 ‐ Vcol,b)
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
2. Check the horizontal joint shear stress
This check is required to ensure that a brittle failure of the diagonal compression strut doesn't occur.
Calculate the effective joint width for the beam on each side of the joint, (refer to Limitations & Assumptions for
guidance on this).
bj = min(bc, bw1 + 0.5hc) bj = min(bw, bc + 0.5hc)
Case (a) bc >= bw Case (b) bc < bw
Side 1 For bc >= bw1 bj1 = min(bc, bw1 + 0.5hc)

For bc < bw1 bj1 = min(bw1, bc + 0.5hc)
Side 2 For bc >= bw2 bj2 = min(bc, bw2 + 0.5hc)
For bc < bw2 bj2 = min(bw2, bc + 0.5hc)
where bc = width of column (perpendicular to direction of shear being considered)
hc = depth of column (parallel to direction of shear being considered)
bw1 & bw2 = web width of beams on either side of joint
Refer to sketch above which assumes that the beams on each side of the joint are of equal width
i.e. bw1 = bw2 = bw
Effective joint width bj = min(bj1, bj2)
Note that for a joint for which there is a beam on only one side, the effective joint width can be calculated directly
by considering the beam dimensions of the beam that exists i.e. it won't be necessary to calculate bj1 & bj2 and take
bj as the minimum of the two but instead bj can be calculated directly.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Calculate the horizontal joint shear stress
vjh = Vjh / bjhc
Calculate limiting value of horizontal joint shear stress
vjh,lim = 0.25fcu
If vjh <= vjh,lim the joint size is adequate
If vjh > vjh,lim the joint size is inadequate ‐ needs increasing (usually column)
3. Calculate area of horizontal shear reinforcement required
Calculate the value of the axial load allocation factor, Cj
For a two dimensional joint the value of Cj = 1.0
For a three dimensional joint Cj is calculated as follows:
Cj = Vjh/(Vjx + Vjy)
where Vjh = horizontal joint shear force in direction being considered
Vjx = horizontal joint shear force in one orthogonal direction
Vjy = horizontal joint shear force in other orthogonal direction
Calculate area of horizontal shear reinforcement required
Ajh = [Vjh / (0.87fyh)].[0.5 ‐ CjN/(Agfcu)]
where N = minimum column axial load from the ultimate loadcases
Ag = gross cross‐sectional area of column
fyh = characteristic yield strength of horizontal reinforcement
Note that if the value of Ajh becomes negative, this signifies that no horizontal shear reinforcement is required.
4. Calculate area of vertical shear reinforcement required
Calculate the approximate vertical shear force
Vjv = Vjh.[ max (hb1, hb2) / hc]
where hb1 & hb2 are overall depths of the beams on either side of the joint
Calculate area of vertical shear reinforcement required
Ajv = (0.4Vjv ‐ CjN) / (0.87fyv)
Note that if the value of Ajv becomes negative, this signifies that no vertical shear reinforcement is required.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Limitations & Assumptions
The code and the references tend to assume that the beams are aligned on plan, always in an orthogonal axis
system and with top all level in plan ‐ this may not be true for all models. Note the following limitations and
assumptions that apply.
Beams at an angle to the orthogonal direction
An orthogonal arrangement is always assumed ‐ where beams meet columns at angles to the column axes this is
ignored (it is assumed that the impact of small angular changes in the beam line will not be significant).
Beams inclined to the horizontal
An inclined beam will be handled by simply treating the beam as though it were horizontal i.e. the actual beam top
and bottom reinforcement and analysis moments will be used without any modifications. The degree of
conservatism would increase as the angle of inclination increased.
More than 1 beam framing into the column on the same side (in the same direction)
If there are more than one beam framing into a column at one side (in the same direction), their effect on the joint
is summed up because their cumulative effect tries to shear the joint.
Circular and irregular columns
For the design of beam/column joints as described above the properties of the column affecting the design are the
depth of the column (parallel to the direction of the shear force), hc, the width of the column (perpendicular to the
direction of the shear force), bc and the gross cross‐sectional area, Ag ( = hc x bc).
A circular column bc and hc will be taken as the diameter of the column.
For irregular columns, bc and hc will as taken as the breadth and depth of the bounding rectangle respectively.
Summary of the assumption shown in table below
Polyline column Clause
Column breadth (b‐c) Breadth of bounding rectangle = dia
Column depths (h‐c) Depth of bounding rectangle = dia
Column area Actual column Area Actual column Area
Beam‐wall joints
Beams to walls joints are not checked and are beyond the scope of Orion.
Beams at different levels
If beams at different levels are framing into a column at a particular floor, the difference in levels is ignored in the
joint check.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Summary
Generally, for a regular building model, it is expected that most joints will pass but need some internal joint shear
reinforcement.
• The designer is advised to ensure that the braced / unbraced status is set properly as it would make a significant
difference.
• Do take note that there is an option in the column design settings to provide joint shear reinforcement through
beam depth.
• The designer can calculate the amount of shear reinforcement provided by minimum links and then browse
through calculations looking for cases where this is exceeded and then check those joints more carefully.
• Any joint where vertical shear reinforcement is required should be examined in detail.
Joints with beam arrangements that fall outside the norm (as stated in the code of practice), should be examined
and independently checked as required.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 23 : Solution Options for Inclined/Lowered Members
Chapter 23 Solution Options for Inclined/Lowered Members
Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to demonstrate the solution options available for structures containing inclined/
lowered members, of which any of the following are possible:
• sloping and/or lowered slabs
• sloping and/or lowered beams
• sloping and/or lowered columns
• sloping and/or lowered and/or tapered walls
Specific attention is drawn to the additional limitations that apply when any of the above have been employed and
to those areas where extra care during modelling is necessary.
Consider the model shown above, which features a number of inclined members:
• inclined beams, slabs and columns have been defined at storey 2,
• these columns and also the end wall have been lowered beneath the general floor level,
• a tapered wall has been defined at storey 1.
Note The features described in this chapter are for the purpose of defining occasional sloping/
lowered members within a model containing distinct horizontal floor planes. These features
are NOT intended to facilitate the modelling of structures with complex geometries in which
the floor planes are not readily apparent.
The method used for creating inclined/lowered members is described elsewhere ‐ see:
• Modelling Inclined and Lowered Members
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Overview of Solution Options and Limitations
The presence of inclined/lowered members in a structure does not in itself preclude the use of either the Building
Analysis or FE Chasedown Analysis method of solution. However you must be aware of the limitations that apply to
each ‐ particularly if the latter method is adopted.
This chapter uses a Building Analysis Worked Example to illustrate the first solution method. This is then followed
by a list of the general limitations ‐ see General Limitations ‐ Inclined/Lowered Members.
For those structures for which an FE Chasedown Analysis solution is required, a second worked example is included
‐ see FE Analysis Worked Example following this is a list of those limitations applicable specifically to FE‐ see
Limitations ‐ FE Analysis of Inclined/Lowered Members.
If an FE chasedown analysis is performed a further item to be considered is the suitability of the analysis model for
accurately determining building sway ‐ this is discussed in the section: Limitations ‐ Finite Element Analysis and
Building Sway
Inclined Beam and Slab Loads
The following points should be taken into consideration when applying loads to inclined beams and slabs:
• Gravity loads applied to inclined beams and slabs are always applied vertically, (not perpendicular to the slab).
• Area and line loads applied via the Slab Load tool are always applied to the projected slab area and therefore
take no account of the incline.
• For slab loads defined via the slab properties dialog (including slab self weight) ‐ whether or not the incline is
taken into account when determining the loaded area will depend on the method of solution:
• building analysis takes the incline into account (irrespective of whether yield line, or FE beam load
decomposition is used).
• FE analysis ignores the incline.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Building Analysis Worked Example
The model described at the start of this chapter is used in this example.
Diaphragm Modelling
One of the key issues to consider for any model which incorporates inclined planes is the diaphragm modelling.
There is a potential for errors to result if those nodes being constrained by a diaphragm do not all lie in the same
plane. A warning is displayed during the building analysis if such a situation exists:
In this example there is a potential problem at storey 2. The deviation from a common plane is small and the error
introduced will not be too great, however, for the purpose of the example it is convenient to remove the problem.
Corrective action requires the physical exclusion of the two inclined slabs from the floor diaphragm as shown
below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Note that the removal of slabs from a diaphragm in this manner is only effective if the Storey Diaphragm Model is
set to Slabs to Define Rigid Diaphragm in the Building Analysis Model Options.
The diaphragm model that results as a consequence of the above settings is shown below, note that all nodes
constrained by each diaphragm are constrained within a single plane:
For further guidance on the topic of working with diaphragms and inclined planes see Diaphragm Modelling
Simplified Load Decomposition
For any storey containing inclined beams and slabs irrespective of the load decomposition method the following
simplification is always applied:
All inclined (or lowered) beams and slabs are considered to be in the same plane for the purposes of load
decomposition.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In this example, although the slabs at storey 2 contain two slopes, the entire floor remains continuous, hence
irrespective of the load decomposition method adopted the simplification described above has no adverse effects.
Where models contain inclined (or lowered) beams or slabs, it remains the user's responsibility to ensure that
whichever decomposition method is applied, the above simplification does not adversely affect the results of the
building analysis.
Refer to Load decomposition for lowered slabs in the General Limitations section for an example of when corrective
action is necessary.
Analysis
A building analysis is to be performed using yield line load decomposition.The diaphragm model is set as Slabs to
Define Rigid Diaphragm and the other Analysis Model settings are as shown below.
When the building analysis is run it completes with no errors or warnings.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Load Comparison Check
For all structures it is worth checking the axial load comparison report available after analysis.
This report shows up to 4 tables, the first indicates the sum of loads as they are applied to the structure (the
"un‐decomposed" loads). The second indicates the sum of loads as they are applied to beams at each level (after
"decomposing" slab loads). The third indicates the total column/wall loads derived at each level after the building
analysis. The fourth (not shown above) indicates the total column/wall loads derived at each level if an "FE Chase
Down" has been performed.
In the example above you can see that no significant loading discrepancies have occurred in either the load
decomposition phase or the building analysis phase, the analysis is complete.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The following points should be noted:
• The reduction in self weight due to the wall and two columns being lowered below the general floor level at
storey 2 is accounted for.
• The slight increase in self weight where beams, slabs and columns have been inclined is accounted for.
• For the two inclined slabs, the sloped area rather than the projected area has been used when calculating the
full area dead and live loads.
• The total column/wall loads reported in the third table are adjusted to take into consideration any non‐vertical
columns or walls. Only the axial force component is adjusted, no allowance is made for the inclusion of a
vertical shear component. This may result in a slight discrepancy between the second and third tables.
Switching to FE Beam Load Decomposition
For the purposes of load decomposition irrespective of the method used, inclined/lowered beams and slabs are
considered to be in the same plane, this is clearly apparent when viewing the FE load decomposition model for
storey 2 as shown below:
If the analysis is re‐run having been loaded on this basis, the same adjustments for inclined members are made as
were described previously and hence the building analysis result should be similar to that obtained on the basis of
yield line decomposition.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The axial load comparison report based on FE beam load decomposition is as follows:
Although there is a slight increase in the load applied when the FE decomposition method is used, this is due to a
slight conservatism in the FE decomposition method generally (and is unrelated to the presence, or otherwise, of
inclined members).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Design and Detailing
All beams, columns and walls can be designed automatically as part of a single batch building analysis and design if
requested, as shown below.
Inclined Beam Design
The sloped beam length is used for design. The design procedure is identical to that for horizontal beams as covered
in the chapter Beam Design to BS8110.
Inclined Beam Detail Drawings and Quantities
The sloped beam lengths are also taken into account in the detail drawings and steel quantities. Details along the
lines of those shown below are produced automatically.
Note The concrete and formwork quantities do not take account of the sloped length of the beams.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Inclined Column Design
Inclined columns are designed and detailed in a similar manner to vertical columns. The inclined column length is
used in the design calculations.
In this example, the two inclined columns have been dropped below the general slab level, which shortens their
designed length (by 500mm), however, because they are inclined their length increases slightly, hence the actual
design length is only shorter by 423mm.
The design procedure is described in the chapter Column Design to BS8110
Inclined Column Detail Drawings and Quantities
The Column Application Plan for storey 2 is shown below:
Each section is drawn perpendicular to the face of the member ‐ for the inclined columns the sections are therefore
inclined as opposed to horizontal.
By examining the longitudinal steel details, it is clear that the drop has been accounted for, (the bar lengths differ
by exactly 500mm). However, it is also clear that these lengths do not take into account column inclines (if they did
the H16‐2 bars would be slightly longer). This limitation also applies in the column steel quantity reports.
Note Similarly, the concrete and formwork quantities take into account the column drops but do not
take account of the column inclines.
Tapered Wall Design
The tapered wall is designed as a rectangular section of constant cross‐section. Tapered wall properties are always
derived from the cross‐section at the top of the wall.
Note If a tapered wall is specified where the cross section at the top is larger than at the base, the
resulting design would be unconservative.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Tapered Wall Detail Drawings and Quantities
The detailing and quantities produced for the tapered wall require attention as the reinforcement is provided to
suit the top cross‐section only as shown below.
Note The tapered parts of the wall are not included in the concrete quantities. The formwork also
follows the same sizing ignoring the taper.
Design and Detailing of the Inclined Slabs
Inclined slabs are designed and detailed as if they were horizontal.
The effective spans used for calculating the moment co‐efficients, the deflection checks and the bar lengths are the
horizontal projections of the inclined span lengths.
The concrete and formwork quantities also assume a horizontal slab and consequently give lower quantities for
each.
Tapered Wall Modelling
A mid‐pier idealisation has been used for the all the walls in the analysis model. In this section we shall investigate
the consequences of switching to an FE idealisation for the tapered wall.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Gravity Loads (Mid‐Pier Wall Modelling)
The axial loads developed in the tapered wall at foundation level are shown below (by activating the appropriate
display setting).
Gravity Loads (FE Meshed Wall Modelling)
If the building analysis is repeated using FE meshed walls the axial loads developed in the columns and walls at
foundation level are shown below.
Although the overall results are only affected very slightly, there is a local increase in the axial force due to dead
load in the tapered wall.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
This increase is attributable to the chosen method of modelling. The mid‐pier modelling of the tapered wall uses an
average width defined by top width which means a reduction in the wall self weight used in the analysis.
The section of the wall used in the analysis based on mid‐pier modelling is shown hatched, above.
The FE shell model gives a closer approximation to the actual self weight of the tapered wall.
We would not suggest that this is sufficient reason to use FE Meshed Wall modelling generally. Tapered walls are
unlikely to feature in a typical model and even if they do, the amount of error introduced by the mid‐pier
idealisation is quite small ‐ the benefits of simplicity and speed of solution that are offered by the mid‐pier wall
solution should not be ignored.
Note It is possible to specify mid‐pier modelling in the Building Analysis options menu, but then to
locally over‐ride this setting for an individual wall, via the 3D tab of the Shear Wall Properties
dialog.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
General Limitations ‐ Inclined/Lowered Members
Note If an FE chasedown analysis is performed, a further set of limitations are also applicable, these
are described in the section: Limitations ‐ FE Analysis of Inclined/Lowered Members
The following limitations always apply when using inclined members:
1. If the end of a beam, or the edge of a slab has been lowered so that a vertical gap exists between it and other
members at the same storey, it is still assumed to be physically connected to the other members for the
purpose of beam load decomposition.
2. Slab partial area loads are always applied to the projected slab area and therefore take no account of the slab
incline.
3. Slab line loads are always applied to the projected slab length and therefore take no account of the slab incline.
4. Diaphragm modelling ‐ There is a potential for errors to result if those nodes being constrained by a diaphragm
do not all lie in the same plane. (A warning is displayed during the building analysis if such a situation exists.)
5. Axial load comparison report ‐ Although the column/shear wall axial loads totals shown in the report are
adjusted to take into consideration any non‐vertical columns or walls, only the axial force component is
adjusted, no allowance is made for the inclusion of a vertical shear component. This may result in a slight
discrepancy between the total of the axial loads when compared to the sum of applied loads. The discrepancy
only exists in the axial load comparison report and doesn't affect the column design.
6. Column Detailing ‐ bar lengths are not increased to take into account sloped member lengths.
7. Concrete and formwork quantities are not increased to take into account sloped member lengths.
8. Tapered Wall Design ‐ The tapered wall is designed as a rectangular section of constant cross‐section. Tapered
wall properties are always derived from the cross‐section at the top of the wall.
9. Tapered Wall Detailing ‐ Reinforcement is provided to suit the top cross‐section only.
Load decomposition for lowered slabs
The consequences that can result from the first of the limitations mentioned above can best be understood by way
of a further example. Consider the model below, which although it only consists of a single storey has a number of
lowered beams and a lowered slab, (created by defining a lowered plane):
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Note that there are two transverse beams in the middle bay, one directly underneath the other.
The structure may appear valid but a problem can be seen in the load decomposition views.
Yield line decomposition
Both transverse beams in the middle bay are considered to be in the same plane for the purposes of load
decomposition ‐ hence they are both conservatively loaded by the slabs from both sides.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
FE load decomposition
When FE decomposition is used, once again both transverse beams in the middle bay are considered to be in the
same plane ‐ however using this method one of the two beams attracts all of the slab load while the other is
unloaded (apart from it's own self weight) ‐ using this method there is potential for some beams to be under
designed.
Suggested Workaround
The recommended method of modelling in this scenario is to use floors defined by separate storey levels and limit
the use of planes to sloping and minor offsetting of slabs.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Alternative Workaround ‐ Returning to the single storey method with a lowered plane, but with 2 grid lines defined
at close proximity so each beam is on a different grid line (and hence receives load from one slab only). The
program automatically detects that both beams are connected to the same columns.
Plan layout showing the additional grid lines.
The 3D view showing the beams correctly modelled at different levels
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The yield line decomposition
The FE load decomposition
From both the above load decomposition diagrams, it can be seen that the correct loads are applied to each beam
in the centre of the model.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
FE Analysis Worked Example
Introduction
FE chasedown analysis is permitted for structures containing inclined members, however it is strongly
recommended that you familiarise yourself with the associated limitations as described at the end of this section
before doing so.
If an FE chase down analysis is performed for a structure containing inclined members it remains the user's
responsibility to ensure that the analysis method is appropriate.
Example Model
The model from the building analysis example is re‐used:
FE Chasedown Analysis
The analysis uses an idealised model in which sloped floor planes are adjusted to the horizontal.
The following simplifications are applied:
• Inclined beams and slabs are modelled horizontally at the general floor level.
• Lowered (or raised) beams and slabs are modelled horizontally at the general floor level.
• Any columns or walls which have had their top ends lowered (or raised) are modelled as if they still connect at
the general floor level.
• tapered walls are modelled as rectangular walls, based on the top cross section of the wall.
FE Model Generation
The analysis models are created with a reduced slab stiffness multiplier (0.15) the aim of the reduction being to
transfer most of the slab load directly into the beams ‐ (see Worked Example – Beam and Slab Systems in the
Analysis and Design using FE chapter). When creating the analysis models the following warning message is
displayed:
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The message is self explanatory relating to the horizontal idealisations used.
The FE Analysis model for storey 2 is shown below, note that the floor plane is horizontal.
The FE Analysis model for storey 1 is shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The axial load comparison report based on FE chasedown analysis is as follows:
Partly because of the previously mentioned simplifications, the sum of axial loads for the FE Analysis do not exactly
match the previous Building Analysis results.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Member Design based on FE Analysis
Beam design
Extreme care is required when merging the FE results for inclined beams with their respective building analysis
results. The building analysis model uses the sloped member length, whereas the FE model uses the shorter
horizontal length. This can significantly affect the reliability of the results ‐ the steeper a beam is sloped the more
unreliable the results become. During the merging process you are warned which beams are potentially affected.
When any beam is designed, the diagram moments are automatically cross checked against the analysis moments.
If merged FE results are used for steeply inclined beams, there is a high likelihood that a mis‐match will occur. In
such circumstances, because the design forces are invalid the beam fails. If you attempt to examine the results an
error will be displayed similar to the one shown below.
When the beams in the example model are re‐checked after merging the FE results no analysis/diagram moment
mis‐matches occur (because the beam slopes are small). Although the beam utilisation ratios change, the
reinforcement previously determined adequate for the building analysis results remains adequate for all but one of
the beams.
Column Design
In the example model, when the columns and walls are re‐checked after merging, again the utilisation ratios
change. This result is not unexpected as different axial loads and moments are bound to be generated by the
different analytical approaches.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Limitations ‐ FE Analysis of Inclined/Lowered Members
Note See also the general limitations for inclined members General Limitations ‐ Inclined/Lowered
Members
The following limitations apply when performing an FE Analysis of a model containing inclined/lowered members:
1. Sway effects are not catered for in the FE Analysis model ‐ these may be significant in models containing
inclined elements. This limitation is examined in detail in the next section: see Limitations ‐ Finite Element
Analysis and Building Sway
2. Inclined beams and slabs are modelled horizontally at the general floor level.
3. As a result of the above, loads applied to inclined beams and slabs are calculated on the projected rather than
sloped lengths.
4. Lowered (or raised) beams and slabs are modelled horizontally at the general floor level.
5. Any columns or walls which have had their top ends lowered (or raised) are modelled as if they still connect at
the general floor level.
6. The self weight of a sloped beam is calculated based on the sloped length and used in the idealised model,
where it will be shown shorter.
7. Inclined raft foundations are modelled horizontally.
Limitations ‐ Finite Element Analysis and Building Sway
All FE Floor models in Orion (irrespective of whether they contain inclined members or not) are translationally
restrained in the floor plane. This idealisation is common to any traditional subframe model. Building sway is
assumed only to affect the sway resisting part of the structure, typically the shear walls and core walls.
As an example, consider the structure shown below, consisting of four 8m bays in both directions, inclined columns
are defined in the last bay:
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The FE analysis model for this is as shown below, note the inclined columns in the last bay.
Given the above, a potential concern is worthy of discussion:
• Gravity loads in the inclined columns will induce a lateral force that has to be resisted by the stabilising
structure (typically shear walls). Could this sway effect appreciably change the moments in the inclined
columns?
Comparative Study using third party analysis software
To investigate how significant this concern may be it is necessary to perform a comparative study. The results from
the Orion model for varying degrees of column slope are compared to those obtained after exporting the model to
a third party general analysis program. In the third party software multiple analysis runs are performed having
removed the translational restraint at the floor level.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The affect of varying the lateral stiffness is also investigated by changing the length of the walls and also by
remodelling them using shells as shown below:
The moment at the top of one of the inclined corner columns is recorded for 3 different column inclines (45, 30 and
15 deg) and for a wall length of 1.5m and then 3m. These results can be compared to the Orion model results (in
which the floor is translationally restrained).
Typical Test Model Results
Orion model: Column Top Moments
Floor translationally restrained
Column
Wall model sway direction perpendicular
slope
(kNm) to sway (kNm
0 degrees Short wall (1.5m) 126.6 ‐126.5

Long wall (3.0m) 126.3 ‐126.7

Long wall (3.0m) 125.7 ‐128.1

Long wall (3.0m) 117.0 ‐121.3

Long wall (3.0m) 101.3 ‐102.8
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
General analysis program model: Column Top Moments
Column slope 15 degrees
translationally restrained translationally unrestrained
sway direction perpendicular sway direction perpendicular
(kNm) to sway (kNm (kNm) to sway (kNm
Short wall 126.7 ‐128.9 113.3 ‐127.3
Short wall
‐ ‐ 115.2 ‐127.4
(meshed)
Long wall 126.4 ‐128.8 117.1 ‐127.5
Long wall
‐ ‐ 118.8 ‐127.6
(meshed)
Short wall 118.1 ‐122.3 89.7 ‐119.3
Short wall
‐ ‐ 95.6 ‐119.4
(meshed)
Long wall 117.8 ‐122.2 98.4 ‐120.0
Long wall
‐ ‐ 103.2 ‐120.2
(meshed)
Short wall 102.3 ‐103.8 55.0 ‐100.3
Short wall
‐ ‐ 65.6 ‐9100.9
(meshed)
Long wall 102.1 ‐103.8 69.7 ‐101.4
Long wall
‐ ‐ 78.0 ‐101.8
(meshed)
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Discussion
By modelling the floor as translationally restrained, the Orion FE model does not cater for building sway. The
significance of this can initially be examined by comparing for the "short wall" model the Orion results with the
translationally unrestrained results from the general analysis program. These show that the elimination of building
sway in the Orion model in this example produces a conservative answer for the column under investigation. In this
example the degree of conservatism increases as the amount of sway increases (i.e. as the column slope increases ‐
12% for a 15 degree slope rising to nearly double the moment for a 45 degree slope.)
By making the comparison using the stiffer "long wall (meshed)" model instead, the conservatism is 7% for a 15
degree slope rising to 25% for a 45 degree slope.
Several Points should be noted:
1. Even 2 discrete 3m long panels is probably providing an unrealistically low resistance to sway and hence this
example is probably exagerating this effect ‐ in a practical structure it is likely to be much smaller.
2. However, the sway effect would not necessarily always reduce column moments. In cases where ignored sway
might increase the moments this could be offset against the conservatism.
3. In an un‐braced structure (where sway stability relies on the interaction of columns and slabs) this effect could
not be ignored. As is noted elsewhere, unbraced flat slab construction is beyond the intended scope of Orion.
4. Finally, inclined columns will clearly cause tensions and compressions to develop in the slab. This effect will not
develop in the idealised Orion model. Some consideration should be given to this to ensure that tying details
are adequate.
A final more general point is that the comparisons made also highlighted the increased modelling sensitivities that
arise when inclined members meet FE meshes. This issue is very similar to the issues that arise when beams
intersect with walls. There is extensive discussion of this in the wall modelling presentation accessed from the wall
modelling chapter.
Conclusions
Sway effects are catered for in Orion's Building Analysis, however they are not catered for in its Finite Element
Analysis of a sub‐floor structure. (In exactly the same way as a traditional sub‐frame analysis would ignore sway
effects arising from vertical loading).
Although in this example the effect was conservative, this may not always be the case for other structural
geometries.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 24 : Overview of Solution Options for Transfer Levels
Chapter 24 Overview of Solution Options for Transfer Levels
Introduction
A transfer level occurs wherever a column or wall is supported by a beam or slab. Consider the simplified model
shown here.
In this model there are walls along the rear and side elevations that stop at first floor level. There are also two
columns on the front elevation that sit on a first floor level transfer beam.
During a general building analysis of this structure, a completely coherent 3D analysis model can be constructed
and solved. Orion will not any issue warning or error messages for a structure as simple as this one. However, in
any model containing transfer levels there are potential problems and limitations to bear in mind. Orion provides
more than one way of dealing with such models. This chapter is intended to introduce the options available to you
and the potential limitations.
Understanding the Problem and the Limitations
Broadly speaking there are two cases to consider here, we will now briefly introduce each in turn and cross refer to
examples in subsequent chapters that illustrate the issues and suggested solutions in greater detail.
Where Beams support Columns and Walls
As noted above, many models containing transfer beams can be analysed and designed without any apparent
difficulty. The first part of the example in the chapter, Transfer Beams – General Method illustrates this point.
The chapter goes on to illustrate the issues of which you need to beware:
• 3D Analysis Effects – Any traditional 3D linear elastic analysis of a structure may not give results that are in line
with your engineering expectations.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 24 : Overview of Solution Options for Transfer Levels
• Walls supported by more than one beam (An example to show an arrangement that needs to be handled with
caution).
Subsequent chapters go on to illustrate the optional FE Chase Down methods for assessing transfer beams:
• A simpler/faster way that you would use for more regular buildings and in particular where you do not intend
to make use of FE analysis results for slab design. A worked example for this is provided in the chapter Transfer
Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest).
• A more complex variation of the method above which uses the meshed up FE Floor models. If it is your
intention to use FE results for slab design, then you will find it easier to use this method since it reutilises the
same floor models. A worked example for this is provided in the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option
2.
In these examples we show how beams can initially be designed using one method and then cross checked and
amended using another.
Where Slabs support Columns and Walls
In such circumstances the only method for designing the slabs to resist the axial loads from the discontinuous
columns is an FE Chase Down. A worked example for this is provided in the chapter Solution Option for Transfer
Slabs.
Key Limitation
Before delving into the detail of the specific examples in the following chapters, it is worth noting the key limitation
that continues to apply to structures containing transfer levels.
The FE Chase Down method does not deal with sway (lateral) loads in any way. Sway resistance is always assessed
using the building analysis and is therefore subject to the limitations of that analysis. If the columns/walls that are
discontinuous are an important element of the sway resistance system for your building then you will need to
consider your design with some care. For example:
1. If continuous walls brace your building then columns would be regarded as braced for the purposes of design.
Such columns are almost unaffected by sway loads and designed exclusively for gravity loads. Where such
columns stop at transfer levels, Orion’s iterative building analysis and/or FE Chase Down methods will collect all
the gravity loads and apply them to the beams or slabs as appropriate. This sort of condition is not a concern.
2. It is much less common to see un‐braced columns – i.e. buildings where sway resistance is provided by frame
action between columns and beams/slabs. In such cases concerns relating to discontinuous columns would be
greater – the same issues as described for walls below would apply.
3. Discontinuous walls are more of a concern. Walls generally attract more significant sway loads thus generating
moments (or couples) at the transfer level. In the chapter Transfer Beams – General Method examples show
how this condition is catered for analytically while the design may prove to be conservative. However, in such
circumstances it is recommended that an increased level of attention is paid to the parallel checks that are
required when using any analysis/design software.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 25 : Transfer Beams – General Method
Chapter 25 Transfer Beams – General Method
Note DOCUMENTATION BETA STATUS: The documentation within this chapter has yet to be updated
to be in line with the latest release of the program. Screen captures etc. may therefore be a
little out of date, however, the principles are generally unchanged.
Modelling and Analysis
If you want to work through this example for yourself, you can load model DOC_Example_01. In order not to
destroy the example for someone else you should then save the model with a new name before proceeding.
Analysis Model Options
Having loaded this model you should confirm that the building analysis model option settings are made as shown
below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Model Tab
The default settings are used as shown above.
Stiffnesses Tab
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Settings Tab
Note that the option to Issue Warnings for Unsupported Columns …. is also checked at the moment.
Analysis
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Check the options as shown above and start the building analysis which should then run with no error or warning
messages and be completed as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
For all structures it is worth looking at the axial load comparison report available after analysis.
This report shows up to 4 tables, the first indicates the sum of loads as they are applied to the structure (the
un‐decomposed loads). The second indicates the sum of loads as they are applied to beams at each level (after
decomposing slab loads). The third indicates the total column/wall loads derived at each level after the building
analysis. The fourth (not shown above) indicates the total column/wall loads derived at each level if an FE Chase
Down has been performed.
In the example above you can clearly see that no loading discrepancies have occurred in either the load
decomposition phase or the building analysis phase, the analysis is complete.
Note In the analysis settings you have the option to define an Axial Load Comparison Tolerance, in
this example it was set to the default 5%. If the overall totals in the above tables vary by more
than this amount Orion will issue warnings at the end of the analysis.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Design and Detailing of the Transfer Beams
All beams and columns, including the transfer beams and columns can be designed automatically as part of a single
batch building analysis and design if requested as shown below.
Transfer beams are designed and detailed like any other beam; this procedure is controlled by the beam design
settings and preferences as covered in the Orion Training Manual. Details along the lines of those shown below are
produced automatically.
The columns above the beam are shown automatically and slab and beam lines behind the beam are optionally
dotted in.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Discussion of Frame Analysis Results
Gravity Loads (Mid‐Pier Wall Modelling)
The axial loads developed in the columns and walls at second floor level are shown below (by activating the
appropriate display setting).
Does it seem strange that the internal columns along grid A do not develop higher axial loads than the corner
column?
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Building Analysis Results
The results can be reviewed graphically to see shear force diagrams as shown above and bending moment diagrams
as shown below. Note how the side and rear walls are idealised with a single mid‐pier element.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Front Transfer Beam
The member force diagrams for the front transfer beam are shown above. It all looks very reasonable – a peak
sagging moment of 579 kNm, and end shears of up to 336 kN.
Notice that the loading diagram does not show applied loads at the transfer column positions. The transfer
columns are a part of the analysis model and so the loads they transfer can only be seen in terms of the steps in the
shear force diagram, which are clearly visible.
Notice the small steps in the bending moment diagram under the supported column positions, these are a small
indication of the frame action being developed with the columns themselves, this step could be eliminated by
pinning the bottom of the transfer columns.
It is noted that there is currently no (easy) way to account for IL reductions within the columns that load the
transfer beam, in beams supporting columns with many levels above this means that the transfer beam design will
be conservative by default.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Rear Transfer Beam
The member force diagrams for the rear transfer beam are shown above. Again, it all looks very reasonable – a
peak sagging moment of 1155 kNm, and end shears of up to 416 kN.
Note that the wall is idealised as single mid‐pier element therefore it’s load is concentrated at the centre of the
beam as can be seen from the shear force diagram. Clearly this idealisation will tend to result in conservative
design of the transfer beams.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Frame Action
Now consider the moment diagrams for the continuous beam line at second floor level above the front transfer
beam.
Perhaps not what some might initially expect – there is no hogging across the transfer column positions. This is a
logical result of any full 2D or 3D analysis, the transverse beam is deflecting, hence the supported columns are
deflecting and this has an effect on the beams above. In essence the loads are being shared according to the
stiffnesses of the beams at all levels. This effect makes more sense when the deflections for the frame are viewed
as shown below.
This also explains the apparently low axial loads noted in the transfer columns at the start of this section.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
It is an entirely logical result the same as would be given by any general 3D frame analysis package. It is probably
not the same result as would be derived by traditional hand calculation methods. An engineer carrying out hand
calculations would probably consider each floor independently designing the continuous beam lines on the
assumption that the columns provide a rigid support producing a moment diagram along the lines shown below.
This may be more in line with traditional expectation but it has not considered the vertical deflection of columns
supported by beams or slabs at a lower level. A 3D analysis inherently considers this effect.
Is there a correct answer – what is it? Since the answer is related to deflection it relates to stiffness assumptions.
This can become an extremely complex subject which is discussed in some detail in the context of Flat Slab Analysis
and Design in the chapter Analysis and Design using FE of this handbook. A very sophisticated assessment would
take account of construction sequencing and time dependent effects. In such circumstances the result needs to be
assessed for sensitivity to variations in the assumptions on which it is based. In fact the result achieved by any such
complex analysis will lie somewhere between the two extremes shown above. A simpler approach to satisfying
these extremes is to ensure that your design covers for both possibilities. This can be achieved in Orion in one of
two ways.
1. Carry out a building analysis on the basis described above and design all members.
2. EITHER:
Edit the properties of the transfer beam and artificially increase it’s stiffness (by increasing both the inertia and
the shear area) and hence largely eliminate transfer beam deflection. Reanalyse and examine results to see
that this has had the desired effect then run a design check on all members in the structure – if any member
fails investigate and increase reinforcement accordingly.
3. OR, as an alternative to 2. above:
In Orion it is possible to force the entire vertical load to be carried by the transfer beam by using either of the FE
methods, further discussion of this analysis result is picked up in the Discussion of Merged Results section in
the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest). In essence this emulates the traditional hand
calculation approach.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Gravity Loads (FE Meshed Wall Modelling)
If the building analysis is repeated using FE meshed walls the overall results will be affected slightly and there will
be some significant local differences which are discussed in this section.
The axial loads developed in the columns and walls at second floor level are shown below (by activating the
appropriate display setting).
There are very small changes in the distribution of axial loads in the columns and walls. The effect where the
internal columns along grid A do not develop higher axial loads than the corner column still applies.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Building Analysis Results
Once again, the results can be reviewed graphically to see shear force diagrams as shown above and bending
moment diagrams as shown below. Note how the side and rear walls are now idealised with a mesh of shell
elements.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Front Transfer Beam
The member force diagrams for the front transfer beam are very similar to those given by the mid‐pier idealisation.
The peak sagging moment has increased from 579 kNm to 584 kNm, and the maximum end shears has decreased
from 336 kN to 326 kN.
Overall the change from mid‐pier to meshed wall modelling has had no significant impact on the design forces
developing in this beam despite the fact that one end of the beam interacts with a wall.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Rear Transfer Beam
In this case the shear forces at the ends of the beam are almost unaffected by the change for mid‐pier to meshed
wall idealisation. The maximum end shear decreases from 416 to 410 kN.
However, over the length of the wall we can see a series of step changes in the shear force diagram as the wall
interacts with the beam. This interaction also appears to have the effect of smoothing the BMD and the peak
sagging moment drops from 1155 kNm to 947 kNm.
Within the length of the wall the wall itself will provide a much deeper compression zone thus reducing steel
tension reinforcement requirements. Within Orion the beam is designed in isolation ignoring this interaction of
beam and wall elements. Orion’s design for a moment of 947 kNm could therefore still be argued to be
conservative.
This situation needs a little more consideration as the wall becomes proportionately longer in relation to the
transfer beam. This is discussed further in the Limitations – Transfer Walls section later in this chapter.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Frame Action
Consider again the moment diagrams for the continuous beam line at second floor level above the front transfer
beam.
The numbers change slightly but the same effect occurs, there is no hogging across the transfer column positions.
As before this effect makes more sense when the deflections for the frame are viewed as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Limitations – Transfer Walls
Consider the wall at the left hand side of the above model. It stops at first floor level and a beam is placed under
this wall despite the fact that there is a column under each end of the wall. On the whole there seems to be 3
engineering approaches adopted in such situations:
1. A beam is defined, so the engineer expects the beam to carry all of the wall load.
2. No beam is defined – the wall must be designed to act as a deep beam spanning between the supporting
columns.
3. A beam is defined but only for detailing reasons, or perhaps to provide an inbuilt construction stage support for
the wall above. In essence the engineer expects the beam to be ignored or to carry a very small proportion of
the load and that the wall should then be designed as a deep beam for the greater part of the load.
Orion provides different levels of support for each of these approaches, we will consider each in turn in more detail.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Supporting Beam to carry all Wall Load
As was shown earlier in this chapter, if the model is analysed using the mid‐pier idealisation of walls then the load is
concentrated at the centre of the wall and the beam is designed for a moment that would normally be regarded as
conservative.
In this case the moment is 905 kNm and the sum of the end shears is 715 kN.
If you want to ensure that a supporting beam is conservatively designed to support all the loads from a wall above
we recommend that you use the mid‐pier idealisation. If this is going to be too conservative an approach then the
meshed wall modelling option can be used provided the points made in the Beam and Wall to Work Together
section below are taken into account.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
No supporting Beam – Wall to act as a Deep Beam
Analytically Orion supports this option with no difficulty. Make a copy of DOC_Example_01 and delete the beam
under the wall. Analyse using the mid‐pier idealisation and the analysis will proceed with no errors or warnings.
When the analysis model is viewed as shown below you can see this is because Orion creates rigid arms at every
floor level of a wall and the arms at first floor level connect to the supporting columns at each end of the wall. The
axial loads that develop in the supporting columns can be seen in the view below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Swapping to a meshed wall and reanalysing similar results can be seen.
Once again it is worth noting that even in meshed walls Orion inserts beam elements at each floor level for
numerous reasons discussed elsewhere. In the absence of such elements (and in particular in more complex
models which include transfer walls) the comparison of results between the meshed and mid‐pier idealisation
would not be so good.
LIMITATION – The model has been solved analytically, but Orion does not automatically recognise walls which
require deep beam design. In the current version it remains essential that a manual design is carried out for all
Transfer Wall Panels.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Beam and Wall to Work Together
If the original model is reanalysed using meshed walls the results for the same beam change as shown below.
The moment has dropped from 905 kNm to 263 kNm and the sum of the end shears has dropped from 715 kN to
562 kN. Given that the mid‐pier model generates a single central point load where a UDL might be a more realistic
we should expect the reduction in moment to be at least in the ratio of WL/4 reduced to WL/8 – i.e. something less
than 50% for this single span example. In fact the moment has dropped by nearly 70%. The reduction may not be
as significant for more complex situations with continuous transfer beams.
The stepped shape of the shear force diagram is indicative of the interaction between the shells and the beam. The
drop in moments and shears is an indication that the meshed wall has a stiffness in it’s own right and is carrying
loads direct to the supporting columns.
In fact, these are probably still conservative design forces for the supporting beam. When Orion constructs the
analytical model of meshed walls it creates relatively rigid beams at each floor level and where these beams
overlap with real beams it replaces the properties of the real beam with those of a more rigid beam. Therefore the
more rigid beam is going to attract a greater share of the design forces and the design will tend to be conservative.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
You have the option to apply adjustments to the rigid beams used in these walls using the analysis option to adjust
the moment of inertia as shown below.
Note that a Modulus of Elasticity adjustment will not affect the merged beam because it retains the material
properties of the transfer beam.
If a 0.2 factor is applied as shown above then the results in the transfer beam change as shown below.
The moment has dropped from 263 kNm to 152 kNm and the sum of the end shears has dropped from 562 kN to
478 kN.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Caution A great deal of effort has gone into establishing the rigid member properties that are generated by Orion.
As is shown elsewhere Orion will generate very compatible results using either the mid-pier or meshed
models when the default properties are accepted. Applying significant adjustments to these multipliers
could seriously affect the overall validity of the analysis.
In conclusion, by using the meshed wall option the transfer beam and wall will both carry load. As is shown in this
example the design forces developed in the transfer beam are still likely to be conservative. However, the wall is
required to carry some of the load and in this respect the same limitation as is noted for the case where there is no
supporting beam is applied.
LIMITATION – Where meshed walls are supported by transfer beams, the model is solved analytically, but Orion
does not automatically recognise that such walls require some degree of deep beam design checking. In the
current version it remains essential that a manual design is carried out for all such Transfer Wall Panels.
However, assuming the transfer beam reinforcement can be considered as tension reinforcement in the deep beam
design, it is considered likely that manual design checks in such situations will tend to show that little or no
additional reinforcement is required.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Limitations – Walls Supported by more than 1 Beam
In the above view you can see a wall supported at first floor level but it sits on two different transfer beams.
destroy the example for someone else you should then save the model with a new name before proceeding. The
first floor plan view is shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Analysis
You can immediately launch an analysis of this building with the settings as shown below and using the mid‐pier
idealisation for walls.
At the start of the analysis there is a message as shown below.
The message is not completely clear as to the problem. Orion is checking to ensure that where a wall is not
supported by at least 2 columns that it is supported by the same beam at both ends. However, there are many
permutations of this sort of support condition and not all will generate warnings. In fact the analysis will continue
to run quite happily. It is better to understand the issue which can be explained by examining the results.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Results based on Mid‐Pier Wall Idealisation
In this case the wall is symmetrically positioned over a supporting column below. Hence the mid‐pier element of
the wall sits directly on this column. This is likely to mean that lower moments and shear forces develop in the
transfer beams to each side of the column. These forces are shown below for the Factored G + Q combination.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Results based on Meshed Wall Idealisation
In this case the meshed wall elements will obviously be interacting with the supporting beams. The forces that
develop in the transfer beams are shown below for the Factored G + Q combination.
The span moment only increases slightly from 145 to 158 kNm. However the hogging moment increases greatly
from 649 to 1374 kNm and the end shears increase from 237 to 789kN.
As was noted earlier in the chapter, these are likely to be conservative transfer beam design forces due to the rigid
link modelling that is used at the bottom of the meshed wall.
However, the wall itself needs to be considered as an inverted deep beam hogging over the support. Once again
this requires some manual check design calculations.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Alternative Modelling Option – Split the wall
In this workaround the model is adjusted, the wall is split into two panels directly above the supporting column.
The split walls are defined face to face – no wall extension is defined at the interface.
With the edits made, the building analysis can be rerun for each of the wall modelling options. Using this
alternative modelling the analysis will run with no error/warning messages. We can now examine the effects that
this has on the results.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Mid‐Pier Model
Now the mid‐pier elements of the two separate walls are sitting part way along each of the transfer beams. The
forces that develop in the transfer beams are shown below for the Factored G + Q combination.
The span moment only increases slightly from 145 to 168 kNm. However the hogging moment increases greatly
from 649 to 1584 which is now higher than the 1374 kNm given by the meshed wall. The end shears increase from
237 to 865 which is again greater than the 789kN given by the meshed wall.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Meshed Model
The model looks identical to that generated for the un‐split wall. In other examples it may differ slightly because
the meshing would not break down to the same sizes. In fact the properties of the rigid elements created within
the walls are related to the dimensions of the wall so we may see slight differences in the results shown below.
However, in this example the results for the split wall when meshed are identical to those given when the wall was
not split.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Summary/Recommendations
Where a transfer wall has numerous points/lines of support there are two basic options:
Option 1 – Do not split the wall
The analysis may give warnings.
In this case the Mid‐Pier idealisation may not be appropriate (regardless of whether or not warnings are given).
The meshed idealisation may be preferable but might not be an upper bound.
An advantage of this method is that the wall is then designed as a single long element.
Consideration should be given to manual design checks regarding the design of the transfer wall panel as a deep
beam.
Option 2 – Split the wall
In this case the analysis will start to run without error messages.
The mid‐pier idealisation will tend to provide a most conservative upper bound for design of the transfer beam.
The meshed idealisation will generate the same or very similar results as it did when the wall was not split.
A potential disadvantage of this method is that the wall is then designed as a series of discrete elements and some
manual adjustment of the design details will be required to reintegrate. However, for very long walls (particularly
those with varying load intensity) this may be deemed appropriate and in fact something of an advantage.
Consideration should again be given to manual design checks regarding the design of the transfer wall panel as a
deep beam.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 26 : Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest)
Chapter 26 Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest)
This chapter and the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 2 describe the alternative methods that have
been introduced in Orion to help deal with transfer levels. Both these methods utilise 3D analysis on a
floor‐by‐floor basis. This method is the simplest and has least potential for errors arising from modelling anomalies.
It is fast because it avoids the need for large meshed up models incorporating 1000’s of plate elements. However, if
it is your intention to use FE meshing and analysis for slab design work you should probably use option 2, which is
described in the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 2.
Modelling and Initial Analysis
destroy the example for someone else you should save the model with a new name before proceeding. This is the
same model as was used for illustration of the General Method in the chapter Transfer Beams – General Method.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The FE Analysis and Load Chase Down
Choose the option to run Finite Element Floor Analysis. The FE analysis dialog includes various features/options
which influence the analysis model that is generated for the selected floor. These options are discussed in some
detail in the chapters Analysis and Design using FE and Flat Slab Models elsewhere in this handbook.
In order to chase the loads down through the building using the simpler modelling option you must start at the top
floor level and work downwards. At each level you must set/consider the options as shown above, noting that:
• This model has no duplicate floors, duplicates can be accommodated but there are rules to note, see the
section FE Chase Down with Duplicate Floors section later in this chapter for more information.
• Removing the check against the option to Include Slab Plates in FE model means that you work with a simple
stick model as shown later.
• Including or excluding beam torsional stiffness will make little difference to the overall validity of the load chase
down. (However, engineers have traditionally calculated forces in floor grillage systems without allowing for
torsion and Orion does not consider torsion within beam design, so let’s exclude it for the purposes of this
example.)
• Checking the option to Include Upper Storey Column Loads means that the reactions established by FE analysis
of the level above will be reapplied as loads within the model you create for the current level. It also adds in
the self‐weight of the columns for the current level. You can review these loads by clicking on the Column
Loads Table button.
• Since there will be no slab elements, adjusting the slab stiffness multiplier will have no effect, you could
however adjust the relative stiffness of the beams. Orion uses the gross sectional area of the beams (ignoring
flanges) and columns by default, so you might make this adjustment to allow for the flanges.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
You can run the FE Chase Down manually starting at the top level by making the appropriate model generation
settings and clicking the mesh generation button. This creates the model for the top level and opens a window so
that you can review it. Simply exit from this window to analyse. Repeat this process for each non duplicate level in
the building.
Alternatively you can run the process automatically by clicking on the Batch FE Chasedown button. The batch
method also allows you to review and adjust the mesh at each floor level if required.
After analysis, options have been added to allow graphical review of the applied loads. The picture below shows
the accumulated dead loads applied at the first floor level in this example model.
Note that the dead loads shown in the discontinuous columns above are similar, but slightly higher than the 63 to
68 kN loads determined in the chapter Transfer Beams – General Method.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Axial Load Comparison
Having completed an FE Chase Down (sequential FE analysis of all floors starting at the top and working down) you
can review the resulting column loads in the Axial Load Comparison Report accessed from the main building
analysis dialog.
For this model there are no discrepancies, as you will see in the chapters Overview of Solution Options for Transfer
Levels and Transfer Beams – General Method this is not always the case. The most important comparison when
reviewing the results of the FE Chase Down (shown in the last table in the report above) is with the first table (the
un‐decomposed slab loads).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Merging Column Analysis Results
Having completed the sequential floor analysis column design forces can be updated by merging the results from FE
with those from the main building analysis. Column results are merged using the appropriate button on the
postprocessor tab of the FE analysis dialog. Lets look at how the results change before and after merging.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The view above shows column loads before merging. These are the loads from the general building analysis carried
out using the mid‐pier idealisation for walls and with rigid zones set to none.
The view above shows column loads after merging. Obviously the loads on the transfer beams have increased, but
as the axial load comparison shows, the total load is the same at all levels.
Column Design
Having merged the column results, the columns can be designed in the usual way. Note that you have the option to
design them based on building analysis results and then check them based on the merged FE results. The view
below shows the column design summary based on the building analysis results. Note that the reinforcement and
utilisation ratios may be different on your machine because of different design settings/preferences that you may
have set.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
After merging the analysis results from the FE Chase Down and using the batch mode check design option, the
reinforcement is unchanged, but the utilisation ratios change as shown below.
Some utilisation ratios are higher, some are lower, it is simply a function of the different axial loads and moments
that are generated by the different analytical approaches. Clearly one column is now failing. This is occurring since
the FE chase down is generating higher moments in the column because of the increased bending in the transfer
beam that is connected to it. Any failed members can be filtered out and selectively redesigned.
Note that you could also have used the options to create and save reports so that you have a complete set of
column design calculations, one set based on the building analysis, a second set based on the FE Chase Down.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Merging Beam Analysis Results
Merging Options
As with the column results above, the beam results are merged using the appropriate button on the postprocessor
tab of the FE analysis dialog.
When you merge beam results a message box will appear confirming whether or not the merge has been successful
at each level.
It should be noted that when results are merged there will no longer be any pattern load cases results for the
beams.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Discussion of Merged Results
Front Transfer Beam
The chapter Transfer Beams – General Method included a section Discussion of Frame Analysis Results in which
frame analysis effects were introduced. In this section we can make some comparisons with those results. The
member force diagrams for the front transfer beam are shown below.
Note that the beam label is annotated (FE) indicating that the diagrams are based on the results of FE analysis.
Once again, the shear force diagram clearly indicates the presence of high point loads at the expected positions.
The diagrams are quite similar to those shown in the chapter Transfer Beams – General Method, in this case the
shear forces and moments are a little higher (maximum sagging moment increasing from around 579 kNm to 712
kNm). The left hand end hogging moment has increased from around 258 to 360 kNm. The transfer of this force
into the wall is the explanation for the wall failure noted above. The maximum shear force has increased from
around 336 kN to 377 kN.
All this is to be expected since the FE chase down accumulates all the loading in the columns and applies it to the
transfer beam. There is no frame action that generates sharing of load back up to the floor above. In fact, this
approach probably more closely emulates traditional hand calculations.
It is noted that there is currently no (easy) way to account for IL reductions within the columns that load the
transfer beam, in beams supporting columns with many levels above this means that the transfer beam design will
be conservative by default. If it is essential to try assess the effect of IL reduction this can be achieved by creating a
copy model with a new set of load combinations where the IL factor is reduced from 1.6 to say 0.96 if a 40%
reduction is required. This model can then be only be used for the design of the transfer beams.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Now we can compare the diagrams for the continuous beam line at second floor level above the transfer beam.
These results may look more in line with initial expectations than those shown in the chapter Transfer Beams –
General Method, but what is the correct answer? Some might say that the sequential nature of construction
means that the above style of diagrams is more appropriate for the self‐weight, this would mean that the correct
answer lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. This particular model may be an extreme example of
this effect, but we would recommend that the possible effects of load redistribution be quite carefully considered
in any transfer situation.
Once again, the check design mode for beams can be used, so if you wanted to design for one extreme and then
check for the other you can do it as shown below.
Beam Design
The design summary for the beams in this model based on the building analysis results (with rigid zones set to
None) is shown below. For details of this method see chapter Transfer Beams – General Method.
(For the purpose of this example to get a pass status for axis 1 the setting for the maximum beam torsional moment
was deliberately relaxed.)
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Having merged the beam results the design and detailing can again proceed as for any other beam, the summary
below shows the changes after running a batch mode check design without allowing any of the reinforcing to
change.
Now some of the beams fail, so we can rerun the batch design and use the option to increase steel only when
required, if you do that the summary changes as shown below to show that everything passes.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
However, in the batch mode when a beam fails all the steel in the beam is reselected, so if you un‐check the merge
option and then check the beams again you might find that beams which previously passed now fail, as shown
below.
For this reason we recommend that having analysed and designed all the beams using one method (e.g. Building
Analysis) you should then run a check design for merged results to find any members that fail. At this point you
should adjust (increase only) the steel in those members interactively until they pass. Then you should find that
you can run a check design for either set of analysis results and everything should pass.
Finally, it is worth noting that one of the most compelling reasons for not simply using FE analysis, merging results
and then designing for the merged results is that FE analysis does not deal with patterned load, everything is fully
loaded. It is very worthwhile trying to use the general building analysis and then merge and check for FE results
selectively.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
FE Chase Down with Duplicate Floors
In the simple example in this chapter information has been defined at all three levels of the building. It is possible
to have duplicate floor and have these dealt with automatically as part of the FE Chase Down procedure without
the need to mesh and analyse them. However, there are more restrictions on what can be regarded as valid
duplicate when the FE subframe models are involved.
The FE model for each floor includes the columns and walls above and below that floor, so for the models to be
identical the wall and column arrangements above and below identical floors must also be identical.
Consider the 10‐storey model above. The folders indicate that information is defined at upper levels 10, 9, 6, and 1.
From a beam layout point of view level 9 might be identical to level 10. However there are no columns above level
10 so the FE models at these two levels will never be identical. Hence it is always necessary to create information
and generate the FE models at the top 2 levels in any model if an FE Chase Down is to be used.
In the model above 7 and 8 are valid duplicates of level 9.
Level 6 has information, the model takes up an increased plan area and new columns start from this level.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
For the same reasons as at the top two floors, level 5 is not a valid duplicate of level 6. If you try to work through an
FE Chase Down for this model then you will get a message as shown below when you try to create the model at
level 1.
By copying storey information from level 6 to level 5 this model will have information at enough floors for an FE
Chase Down to be completed.
Note that information is always required at level 1 and therefore as an absolute minimum in any model information
is required at 3 levels, Top, 2nd Top, and First.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 27 : Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 2
Chapter 27 Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 2
This chapter and the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest) describe alternative methods that
have been introduced in Orion to help deal with transfer beams. Both these methods utilise 3D FE analysis on a
floor‐by‐floor basis. This 2nd option is simply a variation of the method described in the chapter Transfer Beams –
FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest), but this time using the meshed up floor models. This option is therefore a little
more complex, slower, and has a bit more potential for errors arising from modelling anomalies. However, if it is
your intention to use FE meshing and analysis for slab design work you will probably find it easier to stick to this
option rather than trying to swap back and forth between the two.
destroy the example for someone else you should save the model with a new name before proceeding.
This is the same model as was used for illustration of the other methods in the previous chapters. There is no need
to make special changes in support of this new method. Refer to the opening notes in the chapter Transfer Beams
– FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest) for an overview of the problem.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Choose the option to run Finite Element Floor Analysis. The FE analysis dialog includes various features/options
which influence the analysis model that is generated for the selected floor. These options are discussed in some
detail in the chapters Analysis and Design using FE and Flat Slab Models later in this handbook.
In order to chase the loads down through the building you must once again start at the top floor level and work
downwards. At each level you must set/consider the options as shown above, noting that:
• This model has no duplicate floors, duplicates can be accommodated but there are rules to note, see the
section FE Chase Down with Duplicate Floors at the end of the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1
(Simplest).
• Checking the option to Include Column and Wall Sections in the Model means that a more sophisticated model
which idealises a rigid zone extending to perimeter of the column or wall is used. This modelling sophistication
is really only of interest in flat plate models and may introduce more meshing difficulties. For beam and slab
models it is better not to activate this option.
• Checking the option to Include Slab Plates in FE model means that you will need to mesh up the floor slab as
shown later.
• Including or excluding beam torsional stiffness will make little difference to the overall validity of the load chase
down. (However, engineers have traditionally calculated forces in floor grillage systems without allowing for
torsion and Orion does not consider torsion within beam design, so let’s exclude it for the purposes of this
example.)
• Checking the option to Include Upper Storey Column Loads means that the reactions established by FE analysis
of the level above will be reapplied as loads within the model you create for the current level. It also adds in
the self‐weight of the columns for the current level. You can review these loads by clicking on the Column
Loads Table button.
• The theoretical stiffness of the slab relative to the beams can make a big difference to the load paths and
influence the design moments determined in the beams. Refer to the chapter Analysis and Design using FE for
more detailed discussion of this effect. For this example set the slab stiffness multiplier to 0.2. At the end of
this chapter we will also look at the effect of changing this setting for this model. You could also adjust the
relative stiffness of the beams. Orion uses the gross sectional area of the beams (ignoring flanges) and columns
by default, so you might make this adjustment to allow for the flanges. In this example leave the beam stiffness
multiplier set to 1.0.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
At each level in turn you click on the mesh generation button. This takes you into the FE Preprocessor where you
can mesh up your model. You can use the mouse controls to zoom/pan/rotate the model until you see a view as
shown below for the third floor level.
When you first access any model Orion will suggest a default plate size. Meshing is not an exact science, to
a large degree the more plates the better, but as a rule of thumb you should aim to see at least 6 to 8 nodes
generated along the length of each beam. In this model keeping the initial default 800mm plates and 25%
uniformity, the resulting mesh is as shown below.
Note Click buttons in the menu bar to toggle on and off the display content.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
You can keep changing the suggested number of shells and re‐mesh to review the result until you are happy. Since
we have 6 nodes along the length of the middle beam at the front we will use this mesh density.
Refer to the chapter Analysis and Design using FE for more discussion on mesh density in FE.
When you exit from the preprocessor the model of this floor will be automatically analysed. Repeat the modelling
options and meshing at the second and then the first floor levels.
Alternatively you can run the above process for all floors automatically by clicking on the Batch FE Chasedown
button. The batch method also allows you to review and adjust the mesh at each floor level if required.
After analysis, the postprocessing option allows graphical review of the applied loads and other results. The picture
below shows deflection contours together with the applied nodal loads for the Dead Load case at the first storey.
Note that the dead loads shown in the discontinuous columns above are quite similar to those determined in the
chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest).
Within the FE Post Processor you can of course also review contour diagrams for all sorts of shell results. Once
again you should refer to the chapters Analysis and Design using FE and Flat Slab Models later in this handbook for
more detailed discussion.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Once again, having completed an FE Chase Down (sequential FE analysis of all floors starting at the top and working
down) you can review the resulting column loads in the Axial Load Comparison Report accessed from the main
building analysis dialog.
For this model there are small discrepancies between the loads developed in the FE Chase Down (shown in the last
table in the report above) when compared with the sum of applied loads in the first table (the undecomposed slab
loads).
These differences are explicable and unavoidable. The FE model is a traditional centre‐line analysis model. For the
meshed up model the loads are applied to the plates, the plates are then supported by the beams and columns.
The model is constructed on outer grids spaced at 5 m by 8 m, so the total plan area for the centre‐line model is 40
m 2.
P P
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Consider the imposed loads: the imposed load at each level is 2.5 kN/m 2, so the load at each floor is 200 kN.
P P
However, when Orion calculates beam loads using the yield line decomposition method in preparation for the
general building analysis it takes account of the size of the beams and adds in imposed loads on the outer half of
the perimeter beams. So in this example the FE Chase Down finds a little less imposed load than the building
analysis.
Consider the dead loads: in the FE analysis the slabs exist right up to the centre line of the beams. However, when
Orion calculates beam loads using the yield line decomposition method in preparation for the general building
analysis it takes account of the size of the beams and only considers the self weight of the slab up to the face of the
beam. So in this example the FE Chase Down effectively double counts a small amount of slab weight where the
slab and beam overlap and hence finds a little more dead load than the building analysis.
Using either of these methods it is quite likely that Orion has been more rigorous in decomposing and maintaining
loads than most Engineers would have deemed necessary in hand calculations or more traditional approaches.
A more detailed discussion of the Axial Load Comparison can be found in the chapter General Building Analysis.
with those from the main building analysis. You can then design columns or check previously designed columns for
these new slightly different loads. This procedure is identical regardless of whether the floors have been meshed
and can therefore be followed for this meshed up version of the model by referring back to the section Merging
Column Analysis Results in the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
As with the column results above, the beam results are merged by checking the appropriate button on the
postprocessor tab of the FE analysis dialog shown above.
Discussion of Merged Results
Front Transfer Beam
The chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest) included a section Discussion of Merged Results in
which comparisons were made with the results obtained using the simpler FE based option and the general
method.
In this section we can make some further comparisons with those results. The member force diagrams for the front
transfer beam are shown below.
Note that the beam label is annotated (FE) indicating that the diagrams are based on the results of FE analysis.
Once again, the shear force diagram clearly indicates the presence of high point loads at the expected positions.
The diagrams are quite similar to those shown in the previous chapter, in this case the shear forces and moments
are a little higher (maximum sagging moment increasing from around 712kNm to 737kNm). The left hand end
hogging moment has decreased from around 360kNm to 314 kNm. The maximum shear forces have also
decreased slightly.
The notes in the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest) regarding the way these FE chase down
methods concentrate the loading in the lowest beam are equally applicable here.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
We can again compare the diagrams for the continuous beam line at second floor level above the transfer beam.
These results may look to be in line with initial expectations but you should refer again to the discussion in the
chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest) for an alternative view on this.
Beam Design
Having merged the beam results you can then design the beams or check previously designed beams for these new
slightly different loads. This procedure is identical regardless of whether the floors have been meshed and can
therefore be followed for this meshed up version of the model by referring back to the Beam Design section in the
chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest).
Effect of adjusting Slab Stiffness Factor
To illustrate this effect, repeat the sequential FE modelling and analysis this time using a slab stiffness factor of 1.0.
On completion you can merge and compare the column forces, and as you might expect, you should find that the
column force distribution is not greatly affected.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
However, lets now look at the beam design forces that will get merged. The member force diagrams for the front
transfer beam are shown below.
The hogging and sagging moments on the transfer beam have both reduced slightly. The shears at each end of the
beam have also dropped. In this example the differences are not very dramatic, but in other examples you may
well find that they can be.
The effect that is occurring is that the slabs are carrying a proportion of the load straight to the supporting columns
and by stiffening the slab the effect gets bigger. Once again you should refer to the chapter Analysis and Design
using FE for a more detailed discussion of this and other aspects of FE analysis.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 28 : Solution Option for Transfer Slabs
Chapter 28 Solution Option for Transfer Slabs
The chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 2 showed the option to load a meshed up floor model with
column loads accrued from upper levels. Since there is no necessity for a column node to sit on a beam, this
solution simply reutilises the same sort of meshed floor model option at the transfer slab level.
For Transfer slabs the solution method is essentially the same as for transfer beams. Consider a revised version of
the simplified model used in the previous transfer beam examples.
destroy the example for someone else you should save the model with a new name before proceeding.
All the beams have been removed at first floor level and a deep flat (transfer) slab has been created.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
There are a few points to note about the modelling of this simple layout that can often have greater implications in
larger and more complex models:
Column and Wall Positioning
Note that every column and wall sits at the edge but not necessarily at a corner of the slab panel. It is important
that you do not define slabs that simply span over or under internal columns and walls. You can check whether you
have defined such slabs accidentally by running a building validity check, which will generate warnings for any such
clashes.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Slab Insertion
The default slab insertion method is Beam Region in which case Orion will look for a closed perimeter of beams
around the area in which you click and insert a slab extending to that perimeter. This option does not work where
there are no beams.
For Flat Slab models you need to change the insertion method to either Axis Region or Pick Axes.
Using Axis Region Orion will look for a closed perimeter of axes (grids) around the area in which you click and insert
a slab extending to that perimeter. If you did that for the model shown above you would end up with 3 slabs. That
would not necessarily be a problem, but one slab will do. Using the axis region method you can merge these slabs
as you insert them if you press and hold the control key while you click in each of the 3 areas.
For more complex boundaries you might use the Pick Axes option in which case you pick the axes that define the
boundary of a slab by clicking on them one at a time.
Overall it is better to have larger and hence fewer slabs and to avoid small or thin infill strips. This will generally
result in better meshing in the FE module, refer to the next chapter Analysis and Design using FE for more guidance
on this.
Building Analysis
Run the building analysis as described in the Modelling and Analysis section in the chapter Transfer Beams –
General Method. During the analysis errors will be displayed as shown below, but you will have the option to
continue.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The first message shown below lists columns and walls that the system regards as unsupported. This basically
means columns and walls that stop at an upper floor level and which do not sit on a beam.
Press OK and then the message below appears.
Note that the error suggests that the analysis results will not be reliable – this cannot be ignored if you expect to
use the building analysis results for design. In the case of any flat slab structure and in particular transfer slabs you
will use FE Chase Down analysis so you will not going to be relying on these results for gravity load design, press Yes
to continue.
At the end of the analysis you should see an axial load comparison warning.
The first warning is telling us that only 35% of the applied load is being applied successfully decomposed onto
beams and hence included in the building analysis. Essentially this is also telling us that the building analysis results
are of little value.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
At this point it is worth examining the structural model that has been created and analysed.
The problem is very obvious, the two front columns and the wall at the rear do not sit on anything, so the loads in
these frames actually reach the end wall and columns by virtue of beam and vierendeel action at the upper level.
This is not a mechanism, it is potentially a valid structure, but it is ignoring the transfer slab and so it is not the
structure we want to consider here.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Alternative Modelling Option
Clearly this is quite a regular model and in such cases you can make use of the option to define Support Band
beams as shown below.
Band beams are defined along grids A and B. Support band beams are in a sense fictitious beams that allow you to
generate a coherent building analysis model but these beams are not passed to the FE model, so they do not affect
the FE results.
For this particular model the edits shown above mean that the Building Analysis will run with no errors or warnings
and the axial load comparison will be perfect – no missing loads.
This may initially seem to be the best option for dealing with transfer slabs, and for simple/regular models it
probably is. However, most of the real models we see, and especially those involving flat slabs and transfer slabs,
are not regular. It can often be very difficult to insert a logical system of band beams.
Concluding Note on Modelling
Regardless, of how a structure like this is modelled, the building analysis results should all be treated with a good
degree of caution. In this simple example the discontinuous columns and walls clearly participate in the lateral load
resistance of the structure and none of the modelling options above really deal fully with that issue.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In order to chase the loads down through the building using this model, you could stick to exactly the same
sequence and settings as were used in the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 2. However, let’s take this
opportunity to illustrate that you can swap between the simpler and more complex modelling options at different
levels:
Start at the top level and work downwards.
At the 3rd and then the 2nd floor levels use the grillage (unmeshed) model option as described in the chapter
Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest).
When you get to the first floor check the option to Include Slab Plates in FE model and use the settings and mesh
density as described in the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 2.
After analysis use the options for graphical review of the applied loads. The picture below shows the accumulated
dead loads applied at the first floor level in this example model together with the deflected contours for that case.
Although a little difficult to see in the above view, the column loads are the same as determined in the chapter
Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest). This is as expected, since the 3rd and 2nd floor FE models are
U
identical in this chase down, and the analysis at those levels is unaffected by what goes on at the first floor.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
More importantly, after analysis, you can see moment and deflection contours for the transfer slab that take
account of the supported column and wall loads. At this point we enter into the general topics associated with FE
analysis and Flat slab design which are described in much more detail in the following two chapters, Analysis and
Design using FE, and Flat Slab Models.
For this example we will look quickly at some of the results, which can quickly be exposed.
In the view above we can see a contour diagram in the background showing design sagging (tension in bottom)
moments generated in the longer span direction of the slab. On top of that is a section view showing design
moments on a line (red dots along the centre of the strip) cut in the same direction. Note the high local moment at
the column head at the right had end of the line.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
By changing to an Integral strip, we can see the results captured and averaged over a specified the width of strip, in
this case a 1 m wide strip at the edge of the slab. This shows how the high moment at the RH end is a local effect
and in fact higher average hogging moments are generated at the slab to wall boundary at the other end.
This next view shows the top and bottom reinforcing requirements averaged over this 1 m wide strip.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The view below shows As required contours for bottom steel in direction 1.
Note While in some respects a deep slab such as illustrated in this example can be treated as any
other flat slab it is noted that such slabs may well also require some different/extra design
and detailing considerations in areas such as deflection, punching, and perhaps reinforcement
bundling. It is recommended that the details of such important structural elements be
thoroughly cross checked.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Once again, having completed an FE Chase Down (sequential FE analysis of all floors starting at the top and working
down) you can review the resulting column loads in the Axial Load Comparison Report accessed from the main
building analysis dialog.
For this model (before introduction of any band beams at first floor level) we still have the discrepancies occurring
during load decomposition and building analysis that are discussed earlier in this chapter. However, the results for
the FE Chase Down (shown in the last table in the report above) compare perfectly with the sum of applied loads in
the first table (the undecomposed slab loads).
This means that the FE Chase Down procedure appear to have been successful and we can now continue to merge
column and beam design forces.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
with those from the main building analysis. You can then design columns or check previously designed columns for
these new slightly different loads. This procedure is identical regardless of whether the floors have been meshed
and can therefore be followed for this meshed up version of the model by referring back to the section Merging
Column Analysis Results in the chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 2.
As with the column results above, the beam results are merged by checking the appropriate button on the
postprocessor tab of the FE analysis dialog shown above.
The notes in the previous chapters regarding the way these FE Chase Down methods concentrate the loading in the
lowest beam are equally applicable here, but in this case it applies to the slab.
For the beams at the upper floors the design moments from the building analysis may or may not be meaningful, it
will depend on which of the modelling options discussed earlier in this chapter you have used. If they are not
useful you will be restricted to designing the beams for the merged FE results. It is likely that the use of the
alternative modelling option (earlier in this chapter) is most likely to generate meaningful design information in the
building analysis phase.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 29 : Flat Slab Models
Chapter 29 Flat Slab Models
Introduction
When tackling the subject of flat slabs some fundamental issues routinely arise:
The building codes provide simplified methods of dealing with regular flat slab models. In practice a large
proportion of models do not seem to fit within these limitations and so engineers turn to more advanced FE
methods.
Having turned to more advanced FE methods in order to look at models with more irregular geometry, engineers
are often faced with FE results that seem unreasonable to them.
Then there is the need to consider compliance with deflection limits and how allowances should be made for
creep, cracking and shrinkage ‐ for a detailed discussion of these see the Slab Deflection Checks chapter.
These topics and more are also discussed in detail within a training presentation that is available in PDF format
alongside this document and accessed via the link below.
Orion Flat Slab Training.pdf
(If the link does not work please browse to find the file name indicated above in the HELP sub‐folder of the
Orion Program Folder).
The above presentation extract is given and discussed in detail during Orion Advanced Training Days. The extract
assumes that the content of the Analysis and Design using FE chapter of this handbook has already been covered.
The remainder of this chapter focuses on a practical example in which the techniques described in the presentation
are put to use to design an irregular model.
Orion is also able to undertake the Column Punching Shear Checks associated with flat slab design. The
implementation of these checks and associated limitations are discussed in the succeeding chapter.
Scope of Flat Slab Design in Orion
Braced Buildings
Orion’s FE module for flat slab analysis and design is aimed primarily at Braced Buildings as defined in the relevant
design code. Typically this means that the lateral stability of the building should be provided by shear walls and
that the slabs are then only designed for Gravity Load effects.
Un‐Braced Buildings
In this more unusual case lateral stability is provided by interaction between the slabs and the columns. This sort of
construction appears to be less common and is usually restricted to relatively low rise buildings.
In such cases the sway design is beyond the current scope of Orion. However, some engineer’s have still used Orion
for a gravity load design and then made separate checks/assessments of the sway effects. Where the structural
grid is sufficiently regular these checks have sometimes made use of Orion’s Band Beam option which models
fictitious beams within the slab. However, it must be accepted at the outset that this form of design will require
more thoughtful, interactive, and time consuming design involvement by the engineer.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Example of a more Irregular Model
Overview
The training presentation concentrates on regular models so that comparisons can be made between traditional
code methods and results achieved using FE.
In this example a more irregular problem will be considered.
Consider the model shown above. A core wall system is assumed to brace the structure and therefore the flat slabs
and peripheral columns are to be designed for gravity loads only.
Although it looks like a simple layout, it would actually be very difficult to apply the idealisation of column and
middle strips and hence it becomes almost impossible to apply the code’s simplified design methods.
Slab Analysis, Design and Detailing
The methods illustrated in the training presentation for a simple/regular model are in principle equally applicable
to this more irregular model. However, we will work through the steps again to emphasise some points of note.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
If you want to work through the example for yourself, you can load model DOC_Example_06. In order not to
destroy the example for someone else you should then save the model with a new name before proceeding.
Meshing
At the 4th floor level check the boxes to use the settings as shown above, then to determine the stiffness factors
click the Cracking & Creep button. Enter the average dead and live loads as 7.7 and 3kN/m2 respectively, and then
click OK to apply the calculated stiffness factor of 0.33. By using the stiffness factor in this way you are converting
the factored combination displacements to a serviceability estimate for the long term deflection.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
You could adjust the mesh density from the default down to a lower setting that you think might be acceptable.
However, using the default 800mm plate size and setting the uniformity factor to 100 produces a mesh as shown
below which is clearly more than adequate.
Analyse the model and then access the postprocessor setting the Positive (sagging) Moment Factor to 1.2.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Deflection
Estimated total long term serviceability deflection is peaking at around 55mm along the perimeter lengths between
columns. The distance between these columns is about 11.3m therefore we should be looking to see total
deflection restricted to around 11300/250 = 45mm. A 300 thick slab is probably not adequate for these long edges.
However we will continue with the example unaltered.
For a detailed discussion of how the allowances have been applied for creep, cracking and shrinkage see the Slab
Deflection Checks chapter.
Bottom Steel Reinforcement Provision
Before starting to review reinforcement requirements click the Concrete Cover button in the ribbon and set the
effective depth information to some reasonable values.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
We will start by assuming that the whole slab is to be reinforced orthogonally in the Global X and Y directions.
At this point the slabs reinforcement angles have not been adjusted, so direction 1 steel is aligned with global X,
which runs from left to right in the view below.
This view shows bottom steel requirements in direction 1 and as might be anticipated the peak requirements are
occurring along the longest free edges. In direction 2 (below) we see a very similar situation and a very similar peak
requirement of around 1450 mm2/m.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In practice you may want to consider the reinforcing requirements if the main steel along the angled edges is
aligned to the edge. This can be done and will be shown in the Additional Notes on Bottom Steel Provision section
at the end of this example.
We can now use the custom contours option to show where different steel reinforcement provisions would be
adequate. In general the strategy would be to decide on some general lower level of reinforcement to be provided
continuously throughout the slab and identify the regions where an increased provision is required.
In the view above we have set the lower general provision to T12 at 200 and we can see that this is sufficient over a
large proportion of the slab.
We have then considered the possibility of laying in extra T16 at 200 (providing T12 and T16 alternate bars) and the
view shows that this is adequate everywhere else.
These requirements can be simply communicated to the detailer by exporting the above contours to the main
graphical editor and then to DXF.
The same procedure would be repeated for the bottom steel in both directions.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Top Steel Reinforcement Provision
As expected, a review of the top reinforcing requirements shows that in theory no steel is required over large areas
of the slab and that the hogging moments intensify rapidly over the column heads and the core wall. However,
many (most?) engineers would tend to provide minimum reinforcement throughout the top of an irregular flat slab
and so the user‐defined contours shown below show this as the minimum level.
In this case we can see T10 at 200 will be provided everywhere.
Then we see large areas where T16 at 200 would need to be added leaving relatively small areas where a higher
provision is necessary.
As is covered in the training presentation, the only practical way to deal with these peak requirements is to
integrate results in strips cut across the column and wall heads.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In the view below a 2 m wide strip is cut across the head of the most critical internal column.
Based on the proportions and span of the slabs involved this might be considered as a reasonable strip width. It
also happens to be cut just within the boundaries where the lower provision of T10@200 + T16@200 is shown to
be adequate. For conservatism, the strip should always be cut narrower than the red zone, (as this increases the
average requirement) but then applied to cover the width of the red zone.
In this case the average requirement is 2714 mm2/m which is in line with the rule of thumb expectation that the
peak hogging steel provision will be in the order of double the peak sagging steel provision).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The same principle is applied at the walls. In the view below a 2m wide strip is cut across the face of the wall.
Peak requirements tend to occur around the ends/corners of walls, and a little unusually in this example the peak
requirement at the wall corner is actually higher than at the column. Given that we are working with a standard
200 spacing elsewhere, the choice here lies between T20@200 and T25@200 – clearly T25@ 200 are required.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In order to achieve standardisation throughout you may then choose to provide T25 at 200 as a standard patch of
reinforcement across all column heads. Once again this information can be communicated to the detailed by
adjusting the user defined contours as shown above. The yellow patches indicate the minimum zones in which the
peak reinforcement is required. However, it would probably be good practice to apply a standard minimum patch
throughout, in this case something like a minimum of 8 T25@200 across all column heads. To be effective these
bars must also extend a full anchorage length beyond the point where they are required.
Additional Notes on Bottom Steel Provision
It was noted that for this slab some of the highest sagging moments and hence the greatest bottom steel
requirements occur along the angled slab edges. This requirement was being established on the assumption that
direction 1 and 2 steel will be provided in the global X and Y directions throughout. The steel requirement at this
point is high in both directions.
If you check you will find high design moments in both directions at these points, and if you look at the unadjusted
moments you will find that Mxy is very high and that the Wood and Armer adjustment is having a big impact on the
design moments for reinforcement if it is not going to be provided parallel to the free edge.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Logically you would expect that steel provided parallel to the free edge would be the most efficient solution in an
area like this.
There are 2 ways in which this requirement can be investigated in Orion.
When you cut a strip at an angle as shown above you will automatically be looking at moments and hence
reinforcing requirements along the cut line.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Alternatively you can define the intended reinforcing angles in any/every slab independently and view contours on
that basis. In the view below, you can see how the reinforcing angle has been reset in the four panels adjacent to
these edges.
After re‐meshing and reanalysis, you will see contours as shown below.
The direction 1 steel area requirements are shown above appear very similar to the requirements shown earlier
before this adjustment was made.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The direction 2 requirements shown below are quite different. Direction 2 is perpendicular to the free edges, and
as expected the reinforcement requirement becomes nominal at the edges where a peak was previously exposed.
In other examples the feature that allows contours to be simultaneously displayed relative to different axis systems
can seem a little strange until you get used to them, refer back to the Review of Contouring Options in the chapter
X UX
Analysis and Design using FE for more detail if necessary.
In terms of the weight of reinforcing provided, it would be more efficient to design a perimeter ring and then place
orthogonal infill steel, but this may not be the fastest/simplest or even the cheapest construction solution. Using
Orion as shown above you can quite easily investigate such options and you could even create extra slabs to define
a ring beam zone.
As was noted in this example and in the training presentation, it is relatively easy to generate the design
information (the information that can be passed to a detailer) in Orion. This example should reinforce the view
that for flat slabs it may be better to restrict your use of Orion to this level of detail and then revert to traditional
detailing.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Column Design
By following the procedure for sequential FE floor analysis and then export of column design forces described in the
chapter Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 2 column loads can be made available for design.
The view above shows that axial loads and moments are transferred from the FE analysis (short frame model) and
that the braced columns can now be designed in Orion including for IL reduction factors if desired.
Since there are no beams attached to these columns Orion assumes a small strip of slab is effective as the beam and
calculates effective length factors on this basis.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 30 : Column Punching Shear Checks
Chapter 30 Column Punching Shear Checks
Introduction
The nature of the design code requirements tend to dictate that punching shear checks can not be safely
automated in batch runs. For this reason Orion’s punching shear check is an interactive design tool, you need to
use it carefully on one column at a time to review/establish the correct design settings for each column. Having
done so rechecking can be carried out in a more automatic fashion.
In this chapter we will show what this check can do for you and illustrate the limitations of which you need to be
aware.
BS8110 Design Code Requirements
The Design Procedure
In BS8110 section 3.7.6 covers the requirements for checking punching shear. Orion’s punching shear check cannot
be used without a reasonable understanding of the code’s requirements. The following notes provide a brief
overview of these then in the next section of this chapter we will use specific examples to go into more detail and
illustrate limitations.
BS8110 cl 3.7.7.6 describes a design procedure; the notes below expand on this.
Check Maximum Shear Capacity
This is a check at the face of the loaded area, refer to BS8110 cl 3.7.6.4.
By default Orion will perform this check, but limitations do apply.
Check Shear on Series of Perimeters
The first perimeter is at 1.5 d from the face of the column (the loaded area) subsequent perimeters are at 0.75 d
increments – i.e. 2.25 d, 3.00 d, 3.75 d, etc.
To make an accurate check on each perimeter the following needs to be known/controlled:
• Is it an internal/edge/corner condition?
• How much main reinforcement is effective?
• Are there holes, for which you need to account?
For each perimeter three results are possible:
• The check fails with v > 2 vc in which case a required area of shear reinforcement cannot be calculated so the
whole checking procedure terminates.
• The check fails but the required area of shear reinforcement can be calculated and the checking procedure
moves on to the next check perimeter.
• The check passes – in which case no shear reinforcement is required and no further checks on subsequent
perimeters are required.
Note Where shear reinforcement is found to be required on a Check Perimeter it is important to note
that it is then provided on (and shared between) two reinforcing perimeters as discussed later
in this chapter.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
EC2 Design Code Requirements
The Design Procedure
In EC2 section 6.4 covers the requirements for checking punching shear. Orion’s punching shear check cannot be
used without a reasonable understanding of the code’s requirements. The following notes provide a brief overview
of these.
Cl 6.4.3 describes the basic design procedure; shear capacity is checked at the face of the column and then at the
basic control perimeter. If shear reinforcement is required a further perimeter is established at which shear
reinforcement is no longer required.
Check Maximum Shear Capacity
This is a check at the face of the loaded area, refer to clause 6.4.5(3) of EC2.
The length of the shear perimeter at the column face may be calculated in accordance with clause 6.4.5(3). Note
that this only provides specific design guidance for rectangular columns with this guidance being further limited,
for the case of edge and corner columns, to those cases where the edge(s) of the slab coincide with the edge(s) of
the column. Therefore for other column shapes and scenarios Orion has to modify the equations presented in EC2.
It is considered that the equations used by Orion will result in either the correct perimeter length being obtained or
a conservative value (i.e. an underestimate of the perimeter length).
Check Shear Capacity at the Basic Control Perimeter
The basic control perimeter is at 2d from the face of the column (the loaded area), where d is the average effective
depth of the tension reinforcement.
To make an accurate check on this perimeter the following needs to be known/controlled:
• Is it an internal/edge/corner condition?
• How much main reinforcement is effective?
• Are there holes, for which you need to account?
The shear stress at the modified basic control perimeter, vEd,1 is calculated from Eqn 6.38 as follows:
vEd,1 = Vt / (u1d)
The punching shear resistance of slab without punching shear reinforcement, vRd,c is then calculated at the basic
control perimeter. Three results are possible:
• If vEd,1 > 2vRd,c the slab thickness is inadequate, the check has failed and no further calculations possible for the
particular column.
else
• If vEd,1 <= vRd,c the punching shear resistance of the slab is aedquate without the provision of shear
reinforcement. No further calculations are necessary.
else
• the punching shear resistance of the slab is inadequate without the provision of shear reinforcement. Shear
reinforcement is required, and the checking procedure moves on to determine a further perimeter where shear
reinforcement is no longer required.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Calculate Shear Reinforcement Required and Length of Outer Control Perimeter
The quantity of shear reinforcement required when the shear stress at the basic control perimeter, vEd,1, exceeds
the shear strength of the slab without shear reinforcement, vRd,c is calculated using clause 6.4.5(1) and Eqn 6.52.
The length of perimeter where shear reinforcement is not required, uout is calculated from Eqn 6.54.
Calculation of Magnification Factor 
As with BS8110, EC2 increases the basic punching shear force to obtain the design punching shear force when an
unbalanced bending moment is transferred between the slab and column. In EC2 this design punching shear force
is obtained by multiplying the basic punching shear force by the magnification factor  which has a value greater
than 1.0. The purpose of this section is to detail the way in which Orion determines the value of  for various
column situations.
Internal column
 is calculated using the equation:
Magnification factor  = 1 + k1.(Mt1/Vt).(u1/W11) + k2.(Mt2/Vt).(u1/W12)
Where ky & kz are factors from Table 6.1 depending on the column aspect ratio for the particular direction
Mt1 & Mt2 are the transferred moments in the two orthogonal directions
Vt is the transferred shear force
u1 is the length of the basic control perimeter located at 2.0d from the face of the column
W11 and W12 are the first moments of the basic control perimeter about the two axes (see the section on
calculation of W1 below)
The length of the basic control perimeter is modified to take account of the presence of actual physical holes in
accordance with 6.4.2(3) and the first moment of area of the perimeter is calculated based on this reduced length.
For the case where the presence of holes is represented by a value of the Perimeter Reduction (General) greater
than zero then, since the actual location of the loss of perimeter is unknown, the value of  is calculated as follows:
Magnification factor = 1 + (u1/u1,red).[k1.(Mt1/Vt).(u1/W11) + k2.(Mt2/Vt).(u1/W12)]
Where u1 is the full perimeter length ie not reduced by Perimeter Reduction
u1,red is the reduced perimeter length ie reduced by Perimeter Reduction
W11 & W12 are both calculated based on the full perimeter length
Edge column
If the user chooses not to select that the column be treated as an edge column the value of  will be calculated as
for an internal column as detailed above taking account of the presence of the edge of the slab.
If the user selects that the column be treated as an edge column then the component of  resulting from the
transferred moment about the axis parallel to the edge of the slab is taken as 1.4 ie as in Figure 6.21 of EC2. The
component of  to take account of any transferred bending moment about the axis perpendicular to the slab edge
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
is calculated using the right hand term of equation 6.44 ie k.(u1/W1).epar which is effectively the generic equation
6.39. The effects of the moments about the two orthogonal axes are then combined using simple addition as
follows:
Magnification factor = 1.4 + k.(Mt/Vt).(u1/W1)
where k, Mt and W1 all relate to bending about the axis perpendicular to the edge of the slab. Where actual
physical holes are present or the Perimeter Reduction is greater than zero, W1 is calculated as described for an
internal column but taking account of the location of the edge of the slab.
Corner column
If the user chooses not to select that the column be treated as a corner column the value of  will be calculated as
for an internal column as detailed above taking account of the presence of the edge of the slab.
If the user selects that the column be treated as a corner column the value of  will be taken as 1.5 from Figure 6.21
of EC2 with no additional calculation. The value of 1.5 is not adjusted if actual physical holes are present or if the
Perimeter Reduction is greater than zero.
Calculation of W1
EC2 describes W1 as a factor which 'corresponds to a distribution of shear as illustrated in Figure 6.19 and is a
function of the basic control perimeter u1'.
Figure 6.19: Shear distribution due to an unbalanced moment at a slab‐internal column connection
W1 may be calculated from equation 6.40 as follows:
W1 = int0u |e|l
Note nt0u means integral between limits 0 & u ie over the full length of the perimeter
where l is a length increment of the perimeter
and |e| is the modulus of the distance of the increment from the axis about which the moment acts
or in other words W1 = the first moment of the perimeter about the axis about which the moment acts.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
EC2 does not state specifically which axis is meant by 'the axis about which the moment acts'. Is it the column
centreline, the centroidal axis (elastic neutral axis) of the perimeter or the equal 'area' axis (plastic neutral axis) of
the perimeter? For a doubly symmetric perimeter ie one surrounding an internal column and which isn't affected
by the presence of holes, all three of these perimeters are coincidental. Figure 6.19 of EC2 shows such a perimeter
and so doesn't help in defining about which axis W1 should be calculated.
However, Figure 6.19 does appear to indicate a plastic distribution of stresses with both positive and negative
stresses occurring. In order to maintain a vertical equilibrium of forces this would dictate that W1 be calculated
about the plastic neutral axis of the perimeter.
An extensive amount of investigation has gone into the effect on  of calculating W1 about both the column
centreline and the perimeter plastic neutral axis. This has shown that where the two differ in location then, almost
without exception, the value of  is greater when W1 is calculated about the perimeter plastic neutral axis
compared to the column centreline. However, for internal columns, even with fairly substantial holes modelled, the
difference in the value of  is relatively small being of the order of 5%. With a small hole modelled, say 250mm
square, the difference in the two values becomes negligible. For edge and corner columns, however, the difference
becomes quite significant. For a particular column and slab arrangement examined, the values of  for an edge and
corner column with W1 calculated about the column centreline were 1.782 and 2.049 respectively but with W1
calculated about the perimeter plastic neutral axis these increased to 2.727 and 3.644 respectively. These values
were calculated assuming no holes present to affect the perimeter. Some comparison ought, therefore, to be able
to be made between the values of  for edge and corner columns presented in Figure 6.21 (for a regular structural
layout) shown below and the calculated values.
Figure 6.21: Recommended values of 
As can be seen from Figure 6.21 the recommended values of  for edge and corner columns in a structure with a
regular layout are 1.4 and 1.5 respectively which are both approximately three quarters of the corresponding value
of  obtained with W1 calculated about the column centreline and a significantly smaller proportion of the value of
 obtained with W1 calculated about the perimeter plastic neutral axis.
For these reasons therefore, ie for internal columns, a small difference between the value  obtained with W1
calculated about the column centreline and the perimeter plastic neutral axis and for edge and corner columns, an
apparently over conservative value of  obtained when W1 is calculated about the perimeter plastic neutral axis,
Orion calculates W1 with respect to the column centreline.
It should be noted that for internal columns the value of  will only be affected by the axis about which W1 is
calculated when actual physical holes which affect the perimeter are modelled since, in all other cases (including
when the Perimeter Reduction is greater than zero), the column centreline and the perimeter plastic neutral axis
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
are coincidental. For edge and corner columns which are selected to be treated as edge and corner columns the
axis about which W1 is calculated will only affect that portion of  applied to an edge column due to the transferred
moment, if any, about the axis perpendicular to the edge of the slab when actual physical modelled holes affect the
perimeter. This is because for edge columns with the perimeter unaffected by actual physical holes the column
centreline and perimeter plastic neutral axis perpendicular to the slab edge are coincidental and for all other
elements of  for edge and corner columns which are selected to be treated as edge or corner columns the method
adopted by Orion for obtaining  doesn't require the calculation of W1.
Simple Examples
In this section we will look at a series of relatively simple BS8110 examples using the model shown below.
However, although it looks simple, this model is sufficient to illustrate most aspects of the checking procedure
including:
• A typical internal column.
• Typical edge columns with varying slab cantilevers.
• Typical corner columns with varying slab cantilevers.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
• The effects of openings.
The model is set out on a regular 7.5 m grid, the slab is 300 thick with 0.5 kN/m2 finishes and 5.0 kN/m2 imposed
load. The columns are 400 mm square.
Checking a Typical Internal Column
Performing the Check
In the view above column 2C9 is selected, right click and select the Column Punching Check option to expose the
punching check dialog as shown. The options this exposes will generally be discussed in more detail as we go
through the examples, but in summary they are:
Floor Slab Merging Options
• These options would be used in cases where the punching perimeters are not found (generally in cases of
complex slab geometry), refer to the section Slab Merging for more details. In the first instance these options
can be ignored.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Column Punching Perimeter Options
• Rectangular/Polyline Column – allows you to choose the shapes of punching perimeters that will be considered.
BS8110 only considers idealised rectangular perimeters as highlighted, so all checks will be made using this
setting.
Note For circular columns, the same principle applies ‐ BS8110 only considers idealised rectangular
perimeters so checks should be made using the rectangular as opposed to the circular setting.
• Check Column Perimeter and Check Column Drop Panel Perimeter (only active if a drop has been defined) –
These options allow the check on maximum shear capacity at the face of the loaded area to be toggled on and
off.
• Periphery Reduction Amount – An allowance for holes that have not been modelled or may be cut in the future
– see the section on Dealing with Openings.
• Include Load Within Punching Perimeter – When this option is checked the shear load considered on each
successive punching perimeters will reduce (due to the increasing area of loading that falls within the punching
perimeter. When un‐checked the shear load will be the same on all perimeters – i.e. the check becomes more
conservative.
Column Location
• As will be illustrated in the following examples, it is the user’s responsibility to indicate the location (internal/
edge/corner) and hence the more applicable shear checks as detailed in BS8110 cl 3.7.6.2 and 3.7.6.3.
Slab Reinforcement X (and Y)
• The effective area of tension reinforcement in each direction must be input manually.
Checking Maximum Shear Capacity
This is a check at the face of the loaded area, refer to BS8110 cl 3.7.6.4.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
If no changes are made and the column is checked with the settings as shown the result is as shown below.
The output indicates the design forces and then makes the first punching check (at the face of the loaded area). For
this and most reasonable examples this check passes.
The red perimeter is indicating that the checks then fail at the next perimeter – see below.
Check Shear on a Series of Perimeters
Continuing with the same example, the code requires the first perimeter check to be made at 1.5 d from the face of
the column (the loaded area). Note that Vt is slightly reduced for this perimeter, from 1139.5 kN at the face of the
column to 1112.8 kN (because the option to include the load within the punching perimeter is active – i.e. we have
included it’s exclusion.)
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The output above indicates that v > 2vc – reference should be made to BS8110 cl 3.7.7.5, once v exceeds this level
justification of shear resistance moves beyond the limits of the code. Hence in this situation Orion simply indicates
the perimeter in red on the plan view and the output suggests that something must be done to increase vc (or
reduce v).
The shear capacity vc is influenced by concrete grade and provided steel. For this check we accepted the default
bars T8@250. Clearly a much higher steel provision would be normal across a column head so we can now rerun
the check with more realistic steel – say T20@200 (probably still a little low).
The result for this revised check is shown above.
The 1st perimeter at 1.5 d is checked and it fails, and Asv required is determined as 1088 mm2.
The 2nd perimeter at 2.25 d is checked and it fails, and Asv required is determined as 1445 mm2.
The 3rd perimeter at 3.0 d is checked and it passes – so no further perimeters need to be checked.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The plan view reflects these key results – the first two perimeters are shown red and the Asv requirement is written
on each perimeter. The 3rd perimeter is shown green. This sort of red, red, green series of perimeters is ultimately
what you will see against all of the columns.
Note Since the punching shear perimeter length increases and the shear load decreases on each
successive perimeter you may expect to see a reducing Asv requirement on the successive
perimeters. For higher shear loads this will be true, however, where nominal shear
reinforcement is required
(Asv min = 0.4ud/0.95fyv) the requirement will increase as a function of perimeter length (u).
Note The input of main reinforcement has 2 effects. The bar size influences the value of effective
depth (d) used in the checks, and the spacing sets the total effective tension steel (Ast). In
practice you might actually have alternate bars of different sizes providing a total Ast (say
1850 mm2/m for the purposes of an example). In this case you would simply use the larger bar
size and adjust the spacing so as to achieve the correct Ast value as shown below. It is the Ast
value that is important, the spacing is irrelevant in the context of this check.
Providing Shear Reinforcement
Orion will create a plan view showing all the failed perimeters and the associated Asv requirements.
Note that on 2C10 the very slightly higher punching load is sufficient to mean that the Asv requirement on the first
perimeter is greater than the minimum requirement which applies on 2C9. On the second perimeter however the
minimum requirement applies to both columns.
In practice punching shear resistance may be provided in different ways using various proprietary systems. If it is to
be provided using links, the detailing requirements of BS8110 cl 3.7.7.6 and fig 3.17 must be adhered to. This
remains a detailing exercise but the following notes indicate the points to watch – continue to consider column
2C9:
Check Perimeter at 1.5 d —
The 1088 mm2 required at the first check perimeter should be provided on at least 2 reinforcement perimeters:
At 0.5 d – at least 40% i.e. approx. 435 mm2
At 1.25 d – the balance of approx. 653 mm2
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Check Perimeter at 2.25 d —
The 1445 mm2 at this second check perimeter must again be provided on 2 reinforcement perimeters the first
of which is at 1.25 d and is therefore common to the previous check perimeter.
At 1.25 d – at least 40% i.e. approx. 578 mm2 – but 653 mm2 already provided above.
At 2.0 d – the balance of approx. 1445 – 653 = 792 mm2 is required.
Now consider the detailing requirements on each perimeter. The main restriction to note is that the maximum
spacing of link legs along any perimeter is 1.5 d which in this example is a spacing of 380 mm. The spacing of main
bars is likely to further dictate the maximum spacing that can be used – say main bars are at 100 crs then maximum
reasonable spacing is 300 mm. The table below indicates the minimum area of shear reinforcement that will be
provided on each perimeter if a 300 mm link leg spacing is used.
Perimeter Min Area of shear reinforcement
Min No of
at Minimum Perimeter provided assuming min bar size of:
Link Legs
(distance Asv req’d Length
(at 300 mm
from face mm2 (mm) T6 T8 T10
crs)
of column)
0.5 d 435 2620 9 254 mm2 452 mm2 707 mm2
1.25 d 653 4150 14 396 mm2 704 mm2 1100 mm2
2d 792 5680 19 537 mm2 955 mm2 1491 mm2
It seems that T8 legs at 300 will be required on each of 3 reinforcing perimeters.
Note There are some further points to consider in relation to the provision of shear reinforcement
around holes. See further comments in the section Dealing with Openings.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Checking a Typical Edge Column
In the above view a column close to an edge has been selected and a check has been made using the same settings
as were used for the internal columns above.
The view shows how Orion has correctly detected the shortest punching perimeter in accordance with BS8110
figure 3.19, however, clauses 3.7.6.2 and 3.7.6.3 require that a distinction is made between internal and edge
columns. This affects the calculation of Veff in both directions. Orion cannot make this distinction automatically for
all potential geometries, and so it never attempts to make it at all. THE USER MUST ALWAYS CONTROL THIS
SELECTION.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In this simple case the red and green perimeters clearly indicate that the free edge is close enough that this check
should be made as an edge condition on all perimeters. If we rerun the check having changed to the appropriate
column location setting the result changes as shown below.
The result looks similar, but the Asv requirements have actually changed. In actual fact in this example the
requirement on the first perimeter has reduced, and on the second perimeter min requirements continue to apply.
In fact, because of the way Orion calculates the dimension x used in the calculation of Veff (see later discussion) this
is likely to be the case, but this result cannot be guaranteed for all edge conditions.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
As an example of where some care needs to be taken with the selection of edge conditions, consider the column
shown below.
The first perimeter is that of an internal column, the second is an edge condition. When checked as an internal
column the Asv requirement shown above is 1088 mm2 (min reinforcement). When checked as an edge column
the calculation of v changes, but the minimum Asv requirement continues to apply – i.e. the result is unchanged in
this example.
Beyond the requirement to consider and apply the appropriate check there is no difference between the checks for
internal and edge columns.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Checking a Typical Corner Column
The example shown above illustrates a simple corner column case. The points made for the edge column in the
previous section are equally applicable here, the obvious difference being that the corner column location must be
selected. In this example, the corner column with significant overhangs passes the punching shear check with no
reinforcement being required.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Column Drop Panels
In the view above column 2C10 has been selected and a 2m square by 500mm deep drop panel has been defined at
the top of the column.
The purpose of a drop panel is typically to remove the need for additional punching shear reinforcement. This can
be achieved by adjusting the geometry of the column drop panel.
When the checks are performed the objective is therefore to obtain two green perimeters as shown above. The
inner perimeter (at 1.5d from the column) confirms that the drop is sufficiently deep and the outer (at 1.5d from
the drop) confirms that it is sufficiently wide.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Check Punching around the Column Perimeter
For the inner perimeter shown above to be determined (and an output report created for it), the option Check
Column Perimeter has to be ticked on punching check dialog.
When the calculation is performed punching checks are carried out at the face of the loaded area and at the first
perimeter, (both checks taking account of the increased slab depth). A red perimeter indicates that the depth of the
drop panel should be increased.
Note Depending on the size of panel, it is possible for the first perimeter at 1.5d to occur outside the
drop panel. The calculations are then performed at this perimeter based on the increased slab
depth. however, in such a case the calculation becomes irrelevant and can be ignored.
Check Punching around the Drop Panel Perimeter
The Check Column Drop Panel Perimeter option must be ticked in order to check the outer perimeter beyond the
drop panel.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
This time when the calculation is performed, a check is carried out at the face of the drop panel (taking account of
the increased slab depth) and subsequent perimeters are then checked beyond this for the unthickened slab. A red
perimeter indicates that the width of the drop panel should be increased.
Note For an output report to be created for the results around the drop panel perimeter (as shown
above), the option Check Column Perimeter should be left unticked.
If both options Check Column Perimeter and Check Column Drop Panel Perimeter are ticked, all
the required checks are performed and the graphical display of the perimeters is created
accordingly, however, the accompanying report will only display the results around the column
perimeter.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Dealing with Openings
Openings which have been modelled
In the view above a small hole has been positioned close to a column. On the punching perimeters that are drawn
you can then see sections in black (rather than red or green) indicating the lengths on the check perimeters that are
excluded. The excluded length is established as the length between lines radiating from the centre of the column
past each of the extreme edges of the hole.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
In actual fact this is quite a small hole (150 mm square) and is actually something we would not recommend
complicating the FE modelling with. We would tend to recommend that you allow for something like this by using
the Periphery Reduction Amount option. Before moving on to that, it is worth noting just how significant the
reductions due to this (any) small hole can be.
Examining the calculations above, note that:
1. At the face of the column –the perimeter length for the maximum shear capacity check is never reduced,
although this is rarely critical by the time other checks are passing, you may want to consider the possible
effect of some reduction here.
2. At 1.5 d from face – The perimeter length is reduced by 393 mm (from 4660 mm to 4267 mm).
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
As expected the reduction length is increasing. The main point to note is that a small hole of 150 mm side quite
close to the face of the column reduces the punching perimeter by much longer lengths.
Note Providing Shear Reinforcement – The reported Asv requirements relate to the effective
perimeter length even though there is an unbroken full perimeter. The detailing guidance in
BS8110 does not indicate whether the required reinforcement should be provided on a
similarly shortened perimeter. An option to allow for this would be to factor up the Asv
requirement by the ratio of the full perimeter to the reduced perimeter and then provide
reinforcement on the full perimeter.
Note Due to the almost infinite variations of intersecting slab shapes and hole shapes and
positioning, it is quite possible that Orion will have difficulties accurately predicting punching
perimeter reductions, this point is illustrated in the concluding notes.
Calculation of the Effective Shear Force
During punching shear checks the identified transfer force (Vt) is adjusted to allow for variations induced by transfer
moments (Mt). Referring to BS8110 clauses 3.7.6.3 and 3.7.6.4, the applicable cases and equations are:
Internal Columns:
•For bending in both directions:
Veff = Vt (1 + 1.5 Mt/(Vt*x)) (eq25)
Edge Columns
•Where bending is about an axis parallel to the free edge:
Veff = 1.25 Vt
•Where bending is about an axis perpendicular to the free edge:
Veff = Vt (1.25 + 1.5 Mt/(Vt*x)) (eq26)
Corner Columns
•For bending in both directions:
Veff = 1.25 Vt
BS8110 defines x as the length of the side of the perimeter considered parallel to the axis of bending. There is no
guidance as to whether or not this dimension should be shortened if openings affect the perimeter. There is no
guidance on what to do when the length is shortened on one face but not on the other. Where opinions have been
sought on this there is a view that x should not be shortened to account for openings, however no authoritative
guidance has been found to this effect.
Looking to the above example, for direction 1 bending on the first perimeter one side is shortened by 393 mm. The
most conservative view would be that x should be taken as 1165 ‐ 393 = 772 mm. In Orion x is taken as the average
of the two relevant sides, in this case (1165 + 772) / 2 = 968 mm. This is believed to be a reasonably conservative
interpretation of the code requirements.
Allowing for Openings which have not been modelled
As noted above the modelling of small holes creates unnecessary complication and is often best avoided. In many
projects there may also be a need to allow for holes without actually knowing for sure where they are. This can be
achieved using the option to specify a periphery reduction.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Using the same example as above and initially applying a reduction length of 393 mm (the same as Orion calculated
for the first perimeter) the result is as shown below.
Points to note are:
1. Looking at the detail of the calculations you may note that x is not reduced to account for the existence of
un‐modelled holes. This avoids what some may regard as the over conservative adjustments to x which Orion
applies when the holes are modelled.
2. Despite the above, for the first perimeter the calculated Asv requirement is identical. This is because the
design in direction 2 is dominating and in that direction x was not reduced when the hole was modelled.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
3. For the second perimeter the Asv requirement is a little higher because using this option the length reduction is
constant on all perimeters (hence it is 393 mm rather than 522 mm). On this perimeter min Asv requirements
are being used and so the requirement increases as the perimeter length increases. Given that we are only
allowing for the possibility of a hole, we should check the requirements when no hole is allowed for as shown
below.
In essence the above is exemplifying the note made earlier regarding the practicalities of providing the shear
reinforcement. If the Asv requirements obtained by excluding a perimeter length are factored up by the ratio of the
full perimeter to the reduced perimeter so that reinforcement can then be provided on the full perimeter a very
reasonable result will be achieved, perhaps erring on the side of conservatism.
In conclusion, for this model if an allowance had to be made for the possibility of holes (up to say 150 mm) adjacent
to any column, it would be quite reasonable to specify a periphery reduction of around 400 mm to all columns
rather than take the time to attempt to model every possible hole in detail. The reported Asv requirement might
then be factored up slightly to allow for the point made above.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Final Batch Check and Output
Having set up the punching design information at each column location it is possible to rerun a batch check on
punching shear for all columns as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When accessed this option will show a table where the key design information can be reviewed and adjusted if
necessary.
So for the final run on this model a perimeter reduction of 400 mm is applied to all columns.
General Limitations
Three points emphasised throughout this chapter are:
1. The punching shear checks required by design codes are quite empirical by nature and engineering judgement
is often required as to which part of the checks are most applicable.
2. Potentially there are an almost infinite number of variations of intersecting slab shapes, hole shapes,
discontinuous edges, etc. It is quite possible that Orion will have difficulties accurately predicting punching
perimeters in many circumstances.
3. As a result, the checks must initially be carried out on one column at a time so that the engineer can take
proper control over the input and review the results.
The areas in which we would particularly highlight the limitations of the current checking are:
Holes
It is possible that Orion will have difficulty identifying correct punching perimeters as the geometry of slabs and
openings become more complex. The example below shows the sort of issue that could occur.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Two holes are positioned near to a column. Orion has identified the circular hole outside the check perimeters and
has reduced the perimeters accordingly, the black sections of the perimeter lines can be seen on close examination.
For the rectangular opening however, reduced lengths are also shown that extend above and below the edges of
the opening. The above view was created using an older release of Orion. However, there is some debate as to
whether these extended exclusions are actually required, and in fact introducing these extensions was found to
cause other difficulties.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The view below shows the punching perimeters that are now generated in the current release.
There are no extensions to the excluded lengths where a check perimeter is actually broken by a hole, the splayed
reduction of length is only applied to unbroken perimeters. Note that an additional periphery reduction is still
applied – this value could be further increased if you wished to make more allowance for extended exclusions at
the sides of the hole.
If you identify or are concerned about problems of this nature we would appreciate being sent the example so that
we can look into the matter. In the meantime we would suggest using the options to either simplify the holes or to
remove them and specify a periphery reduction length.
Dimension ‘x’ used at the face of the loaded area
At the face of the loaded area you will find that value of “x” used is the same as at the first check perimeter. It is not
taken as just the column dimension. The justification for this assumption is discussed below:
We found that when you do the check using the actual column dimensions then columns in fairly ordinary
situations start to fail. When we talked to people in the industry about this we found that in practice they tended
to ignore this check completely (assuming it to be ok by inspection) or if they did it they just used the actual shear
force and did not bother to amplify it at all, or sometimes that they just assumed the 1.15 amplification noted in
Clause 3.6.7.2 would cover it. Everyone felt that the check seemed incorrect (over conservative) when applied
more rigorously using the column dimensions as "x" at the face of a column.
Basically as you approach the column "x" decreases rapidly and so the amplification calculated in Veff becomes
extreme. Internal columns with ordinary transfer moments are treated as worse cases than edge columns with
very high transfer moments where the amplification of Veff is a fixed value of 1.25Vt. It also seems to work back to
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
front in terms of the way it amplifies V ‐ for example using a 600x300 column, if the same transfer moment is
applied in both directions the amplification of Veff will be greater when bending is in the strong direction (because
x=300) than when bending in the weak direction ‐ seems counter intuitive?
Furthermore there is the complication that “x” is unquantifiable for irregular and even circular column perimeters.
After investigations at CSC and external consultations, the conclusion arrived at was that making the same
amplification as at the first check perimeter seemed reasonable and probably more conservative than what had
previously been done/assumed in practice for many years.
Slab Merging
For Orion to be able to resolve the punching perimeter around any column all of the slabs inserted around that area
need to be merged into one. For simple geometries this is not a challenge. For more complex cases it is a
significant challenge where improvements have been made on an ongoing basis.
Where difficulties are encountered the floor slab merge options may help to either resolve the issue completely, or
isolate the problem so that the modelling can be adjusted.
The examples below are exaggerated in some respects but they do show how the features work.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Notice that some of the punching perimeters in the slab area shown above are clearly incorrect. The option to
Hatch Floor Area can be used as shown below and this shades all the slab areas that Orion has managed to merge.
Clearly one of the slabs has not been included, the reasons why this might happen vary, but usually become
apparent if the boundary of the slab is examined in close up. In this example the slab and some of the adjacent
small strips do not meet properly, the slabs can be redefined and the merged floor area and punching perimeters
are all then resolved as shown below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Note In general it is good practice to avoid thin strips of slab and have fewer slabs wherever
possible. Not only does it avoid the sort of problem shown above, it is also less likely to cause
meshing difficulties during the FE analysis.
Tip The Slab Merging option can be used at any stage during model creation, therefore you can
check your model for potential problems as you create it rather than finding problems later on
when much more editing (and reanalysis) may be required to eliminate them.
A second typical problem occurs where lots of grids meet at or near a single point. The view below shows a column
where 6 grids are meeting in close proximity and the punching shear check is showing a long section of black
(missed) perimeter.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
When the hatching option is used you can begin to see more clearly how the slabs have not been defined so that a
triangle has been missed within the column. (This sort of problem usually occurs in smaller triangles than shown
here.)
If we now check the option to include the column wall and beam edges and then re‐hatch, the area inside the
column is considered as another slab area and so the merged boundary works round the perimeter of the column.
This will potentially avoid all problems relating to local inaccuracies where grids meet.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
If the punching shear check is them made with this option active the perimeters seem much more reasonable.
Note that in this example the missed triangle actually extends outside the column and so is considered as a hole
with the resultant shortening of the punching perimeter.
Specification of Effective Slab Reinforcement
When defining the effective slab reinforcement you can only provide one value which will apply at all the check
perimeters. In practice it is possible that lesser values of effective tension reinforcement may be applicable at
perimeters further from the column perimeter. In such cases results from multiple checks may need to be used, or
the more conservative (lower) value could be used for a single check across all perimeters.
Providing the Shear Reinforcement
Orion provides the design checks and information to allow the detailing to commence. As noted within the
examples, the detailing is not necessarily a trivial matter, especially when allowances for holes need to be made.
Punching Perimeters
The displayed punching perimeters should look correct and complete. No examples of incorrect perimeters are
shown in this document (other than the debatable perimeters shown above).
The presence of holes and/or complex irregular slab geometry may trigger problems in the perimeter
identification. Where holes appear to be the source of the problem it is again worth considering removing the
holes and using the option to specify a periphery reduction. Where slab geometry appears to be the source of the
problem it is possible that the slabs can be redefined locally to avoid the problem.
Overlapping Perimeters
Where supports are closely spaced and perimeters overlap the code requires that a single combined perimeter be
checked. Orion does not identify such conditions and will simply draw overlapping perimeters on the screen. If
this condition occurs additional hand calculations are required to substantiate the design.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Discontinuous Columns
In the special case where a slab supports a column or wall Orion will not make any checks at all. The case remains
beyond the current scope and additional hand calculations are required to substantiate the design.
Limitations Applicable to Walls
Checks on walls are made but should be viewed with particular caution.
In particular here is some debate as to the applicability of a concentrated punching load check in the case of long
walls, BS8110 provides no additional guidance on this. Could there be a stress concentration at the ends that is not
being checked?
Validity of Assumed Wall Perimeters
The example above shows 3 discrete walls being checked. In this example the perimeter of the wall on grid D looks
suspicious (line being drawn outside the slab). On closer checking you would find that the effective length of the
punching perimeter is actually correct.
It is particularly advisable to check the lengths used for the punching perimeters in the case of walls, and it is also
noted that overlapping perimeters (see Overlapping Perimeters) will almost always apply where core walls are
used.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Applicability of the Code Punching Checks to Walls
What the Codes Say
BS 8110 Clause 3.7.6.2:
'The critical consideration for shear in flat slab structures is that of punching shear around the columns.'
The above specifically does not mention walls, and none of the related figures in the code show punching
perimeters around walls; is there any real basis for assuming the equation in 3.7.6.3 can be applied equally to both
columns and walls?
EC2 Clause 6.4.1 (1)P:
'The rules in this Section cover punching shear in solid slabs, waffle slabs with solid areas over columns, and
foundations.'
Note again that it specifically does not mention 'walls' ‐ and none of the figures show punching perimeters around
walls.
EC2 Clause 6.4.1 (2)P:
'Punching shear can result from a concentrated load or reaction acting on a relatively small area'
The punching perimeter calculated for a wall would occur over a very large area, so the inference here is that the
empirical calculation that has developed for columns is not applicable to walls.
Note that we cater for punching checks applied to walls in Orion simply because the user can define very short
walls (with aspect ratios the same as those of columns) for which the punching checks are completely valid. The
point at which the checks may become inapplicable is uncertain, but we believe they must become so as the walls
become longer.
As stated in the Engineer's Handbook some engineers are thought to manually check for punching at the ends of
the wall but there is no advice given in either code for how to do this, so it remains beyond the scope of Orion.
Punching Perimeter for a wall subject to axial load only
Consider an interior wall supporting symmetrical cantilever spans so that it is subjected to axial load only. When
checked to BS8110 the assumption is that punching will occur on a perimeter running around the entire wall as
shown (in green) below and that a completely uniform stress will develop on that perimeter.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
By inspection, although this mode is reasonable for a column it is far less so for a wall; in reality more load is being
transferred into the wall through the ends than through the middle, as a result shear will be greater at the two ends
of the wall and any punching failure would occur over a shorter localised length, (indicated by the dotted line
above).
Punching Perimeter for a wall subject to axial load and bending
If the previous model were edited so that the cantilever spans are no longer symmetrical, the wall would be subject
to moment in addition to axial load.
Logically any punching failure would still occur over a shorter localised length as described above, i.e. the local
punching condition is unchanged. However if the empirical code method is applied it assumes that punching will
occur on a perimeter running around the entire wall, and by considering the moment will show a dramatic change
in the design result.
If it is accepted that the assumed perimeter in the code for axial load is dubious, then it follows that after the
introduction of transfer moments into the equation the assumed punching perimeter remains equally
unconvincing.
Therefore basing a check on the moments in the wall seems to be a fundamentally flawed approach.
Developing a manual check for punching at the end of the wall ‐ some considerations
As mentioned above, a long wall is extremely unlikely to fail in punching around its entire perimeter in the same
way as a column might; however it is conceivable that a local failure could occur at the end of the wall where it is
most highly stressed.
This type of failure isn't covered in the code and there seems to be little if any guidance provided elsewhere.
The engineer therefore would have to rely on their own judgment to deduce a suitable method for checking such a
failure if they wished to do so, (or assume that punching is not going to be an issue ‐ see Conclusion). Possibilities
for consideration when developing such a method are discussed below.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Punching shear results from concentrated load acting on a relatively small area
A localised condition needs to be considered with the objective of determining the shear passing through a
perimeter local to an end segment of the wall. Based on consideration of figures in EC2 for edge columns this might
be taken as 1.5d (where d is the effective slab depth).
How much of the slab load would be appropriate to consider in such an end segment?
Going back to the earlier cantilever slab example, how much of the slab load is transferred through the ends of the
wall and how much comes in through the side?
Dividing lines could be drawn to denote this boundary; where these are placed is a matter of some engineering
judgment. For the following worked example the two most extreme assessments will both be applied.
Worked Example
Consider a 6.0m x 0.25m wall 1W1, supporting slabs cantilevering 1m to the left and 3m to the right, the slab
ultimate loading being 8.6kN/m2.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
The Code punching shear calculation for this wall indicates that additional shear reinforcement is required in
direction 1.
Wall: 1W1 (Storey: 1)

================ Nd Md-1 Md-2 Vt Mt-1 Mt-2
Column Stry (kN) (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN) (kN.m) (kN.m)
------- --- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
1W1 1 845.5 688.0 0.0 845.5 688.0 0.0
Column Classification: Interior
Punching Check: (At the Face of Loaded Area, BS8110-Cl.3.7.6.4)

Slab: d= 200.0 d-eff= 160.0 mm Fac. Storey Load= 8.600 kN/m2 (Concrete: C35/45)
Punching Zone: Perimeter (u0)= 12500.0 mm Area (A0)= 1.500E+06 mm2
1-Direction Punching Check:Vt= 845.5 kN x= 730.0 mm V-eff= 2259.2 kN
Stress Check: (V-eff= 2259.2 kN) v= 1.13 < v-max=5.00 N/mm2 ...OK...
Punching Check: (1. Perimeter - At 1.50d Distance, BS8110-Cl.3.7.6)

Punching Zone: Perimeter (u)= 14420.0 mm Area (A)= 4.730E+06 mm2
Ast= 1570.80 mm2 v= 0.96 > vc=0.92 N/mm2
!!! PUNCHING REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED !!!
(BS8110-Cl.3.7.7.5 /Eq.29a) Asv= 2122.62 mm2
Ast= 1570.80 mm2 v= 0.35 < vc=0.92 N/mm2 ...OK...
PUNCHING REINFORCEMENT NOT REQUIRED
Punching Check: (2. Perimeter - At 2.25d Distance, BS8110-Cl.3.7.6)

Punching Zone: Perimeter (u)= 15380.0 mm Area (A)= 6.518E+06 mm2
Ast= 1570.80 mm2 v= 0.75 < vc=0.92 N/mm2 ...OK...
Ast= 1570.80 mm2 v= 0.32 < vc=0.92 N/mm2 ...OK...
It should be noted that calculated stress in direction 1, (0.96N/mm2) is 2.7 times greater than that calculated in
direction 2, (0.35N/mm2) where the stress is uniform ‐ does that appear to be plausible?
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Manual Punching Shear Calculation (localised at the end of the wall)
Slab effective depth: deff = 0.16m
Wall length: L = 6.0m
Wall thickness: Twall = 0.25m
Wall end segment length: 1.5deff = 0.24m
Slab ultimate loading: 8.6 kN/m2
Most Conservative Loading Assumption
Slab load transferred through wall end: 8.0 x (3.0 + 0.24) x 8.6 = 222.9kN
Punching Check: 1st Perimeter at 1.50deff
Punching Zone Perimeter: u = 9deff +Twall = 1690 mm
Punching shear stress: v = Veff/ (u x deff) = 222900/(1690 x 160) = 0.82 N/mm2
Ast= 1570.80 mm2 v= 0.82 < vc=0.92 N/mm2 …OK…
Least Conservative Loading Assumption
Slab load transferred through wall end: (8.0 x 3.0/2 x 8.6) + (8.0x 0.24 x 8.6) = 119.7kN
Punching Check: 1st Perimeter at 1.50deff
Punching Zone Perimeter: u = 9deff +Twall = 1690 mm
Punching shear stress: v = Veff/ (u x deff) = 119700/(1690 x 160) = 0.44 N/mm2
Ast= 1570.80 mm2 v= 0.44 < vc=0.92 N/mm2 …OK…
Therefore, using this manual method the stress is in a range of 0.44 ‐ 0.82 and never as high as the 0.96 figure
calculated using the code equations.
Conclusion
Based on the above we can see that the punching shear stress predicted by an equation designed for a
concentrated load/support condition (i.e. column) is unrealistic when applied to walls.
It seems the general assumption that punching is not an issue around walls will typically be true. Obviously more
detailed consideration would be necessary where there are openings or concentrated loads adjacent to the ends of
walls.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Concluding Notes
Checking punching perimeters by hand can be a very tedious and time‐consuming task. It is not yet something that
we can completely automate in Orion, and so it must still be treated as an interactive activity. This interactive
checking procedure will also be subject to limitations in many projects.
However, we hope that this chapter still illustrates the potential for significant time saving if punching shear checks
are made using Orion. It is especially noted that once the initial checks have been made (thus setting up the correct
check data), subsequent rechecking can be carried out very quickly indeed.
It is also noted that by following the training guidance notes and making checks as models are constructed
limitations can be determined earlier and hence time can be saved overall.
We look forward to receiving comments on this feature so we can continue to refine it to meet the demands of
designers.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 31 : Slab Deflection Checks
Chapter 31 Slab Deflection Checks
Introduction
The "Creep/Cracking" button located on the "Finite Element Floor Analysis" form is used to make an allowance for
creep, cracking and shrinkage when determining concrete slab deflection.
A comprehensive discussion of creep, cracking and shrinkage is provided in the following topics, along with a
detailed comparison of the BS8110 and EC2 slab deflection checks.
Overview of Concrete Slab Deflection
Total Concrete slab deflection can be broken down into 3 main parts each of which is often estimated as accounting
for around 1/3 of the total deflection:
• Instantaneous Deflection (Cracked section effects are part of this part)
expected to be up to or around 1/3.
• Creep
expected to be > 1/3.
• Shrinkage
expected to be < 1/3.
Various texts may be consulted for opinion on the variation in these proportions and other aspects of deflection
estimation:
• Ref 1: Concrete Society Publication TR58 ‐ Deflection of Concrete Slabs and Beams.
• Ref 2: Concrete Society Publication TR64 ‐ Guide to the Design and Construction of Reinforced Flat slabs.
The key point is that they are all of significant importance. Now consider each of these headings in a little more
detail.
Instantaneous Deflection
A common rough estimate is that the overall effect of cracking along the length of a beam will on average double
the uncracked deflection. Bear in mind that the theoretical degree of cracking varies along the beam length of the
beam. Therefore if you calculate deflection ignoring cracking and creep and shrinkage then the value you have is
around 1/6 of the total. In essence this is the basis of the accepted practice/guidance that a multiplier of between
4 and 6 should be applied to deflection calculations based on a short term E value. The 4 to 6 range recognises the
different loading types and uncertainties involved, offices are typically assumed to be closer to the 4 and storage
situations are assumed to be closer to 6.
A cracked section analysis only improves your estimation of this sub‐section of the total deflection estimate. The
accuracy of cracked section analysis is also variable ‐ different analysis products do different things in this regard
and will get different answers. Ideally the analysis should consider all of the following:
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
• The cracked/uncracked status of every shell in the mesh should be determined separately ‐ some products may
make more generalised adjustments?
• Each individual shell can possibly be cracked in one direction and not cracked in the other ‐ to cater for this
requires non isotropic properties. Some products may not have the capability to do this?
• Allowing for supplied steel. In theory, by over‐providing steel you can delay or prevent cracking. Ideally the
provided steel needs to be defined in such a way that every shell knows how much reinforcement will actually
pass through it (top and bottom in each direction). Alternatively some simplification of this may be used where
As‐supplied = Factor * As‐required, is this flexible enough?
• Early Age Cracking
As part of the construction process concrete slabs tend to see some of their most onerous design conditions
when they are only days or weeks old. Cracking is more likely to happen in young concrete, once it is cracked it
is cracked! An accurate cracked section deflection calculation should consider this. It seems that most or all FE
slab products offer little if any control over this.
Most or all FE slab design packages will make some degree of simplification in the procedures used to introduce
cracked section deflection effects.
Creep Deflection
The deflection of a concrete slab subjected to a constant loading will increase over time. The rate of this increase is
dependent on a number of factors, but to accurately assess creep you definitely need to know something about the
proposed sequence and timing of loading.
Once again many software packages are not dealing with this in any great degree of detail ‐ overall adjustment
factors are assumed.
Shrinkage Deflection
If you reinforce a concrete section asymmetrically then as the concrete shrinks the shrinkage will be resisted more
on the side that has more reinforcement and so the shortening of that side will be less. A curvature is induced in
the member with the more heavily reinforced side being on the outside of the curve. This curvature will naturally
add to the overall deflection.
Theoretical solutions for this exist but so far as we know no one has found/applied a way of doing this in the
context of a 3 dimensional FE floor analysis. Shrinkage deflection is always added as an adjustment factor, or is it
being ignored?
At this point it is also worth considering the practice of adding tension reinforcement in order to control deflection
by virtue of the theory that cracking is being controlled. When shrinkage is considered the addition of this
reinforcement causes increased deflection. Is it clear and proven that this practice definitely has the intended
effect?
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Creep/Cracking Allowance Summary
Deflection estimation for concrete beams and slabs is not an exact science, whatever method you use you should
bear in mind the significant uncertainties involved ‐ it remains an estimate.
With regard to FE analysis of flat slabs the requirement to consider cracked section analysis is often raised as being
important. In fact this only introduces a greater degree of certainty to around 1/6 of the total deflection estimate.
Rather than focussing specifically on the effect of cracking engineers should focus on the estimates of overall
deflection and consider the possible accuracy/error in this total.
There is a belief among some proportion of practicing engineers that traditional methods of sizing slabs based on
span/effective depth methods are conservative and therefore that a more detailed deflection estimate involving
assessment of creep/cracking/shrinkage will allow thinner slabs to be proved as adequate. On the following pages
comparisons are made for a very simple example. It demonstrates that this expectation is not fulfilled and that the
rigorous methods could be quite wasteful if applied un‐necessarily. It demonstrates that the use of linear FE
analysis along with appropriate stiffness multipliers is a very effective method for demonstrating serviceability
compliance in normal circumstances.
Slab Depth and Deflection Comparisons
In this section comparisons of slab depth and deflection are made for BS8110 and EC2.
Standard Slab Details
The following is applied consistently throughout:
• A 6m span simply supported slab is considered
• Dead Load is taken as ‐ Self weight + 1.5kN/m2 finishes
• Imposed Load is taken 5kN/m2 IL (including 1.0 for partitions). This is applied regardless of the classification of
the load type as "office" or "storage".
Comparison of Span / Eff depth checks for grade C20/25 concrete.
Design Slab As req'd Increase As Concrete Increased
Code Thickness for req'd for provided Saving % Reinforce
mm strength deflection mm2/m ment Cost
mm2/m control %
BS8110 290 835 4 % 894 ‐ ‐
260 909 30 % 1340 10 % 50 %
250 939 46 % 1608 14 % 80 %
240 973 71% 2011 17 % 125 %
EC2 290 848 2 % 894
storage
260 928 42 % 1340 10 % 50 %
EC2 office 270 855 1 % 894
255 898 18 % 1149 9% 29 %
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Notes:
• EC2 offers a small advantage compared to BS8110 when the "office" loading category is considered.
• The benefit of adding 50% reinforcement is limited to around a 10% reduction in slab depth.
Rigorous Deflection Calculations for grade C20/25 concrete.
Rigorous deflection calculations are performed for both the storage and office loads.
General Notes on the Calculation Method
The Concrete Centre Spreadsheet TCC31R is used throughout. The calculations implemented in this spreadsheet
include allowance for cracking, creep, and shrinkage as specified in EC2 . An FE analysis cannot bring any more
rigour to these calculations. In practice the calculations applied in most if not all FE packages will involve
simplifications and/or the use of simple adjustment factors in place of aspects of the more rigorous calculation.
When using TCC31R the user is required to provide input on the timing and nature of loading during construction.
The following assumptions are applied consistently:
• Construction Loading includes propping load = 50% of slab load plus 0.75kN/m2 construction load allowance.
• Construction Load is applied at the date stated in the tables and finishes at day 60.
• Partitions load is assumed to exist from day 60.
• Full dead + permanent imposed load is assumed to exist from day 90.
Storage Condition
Slab Strike at Constructi Reinf't Permanen Imposed Deflection
Thickness (days) on Load at increase t Deflection affecting
(mm) (days) applied for Deflection (target Partitions
deflection (target limit
control limit 12mm)
24mm)
310 14 28 0 % 24.12 0.92 12.59
7 14 0 % 26.50 1.35 13.34
290 7 14 0 % 29.68 1.53 15.37

7 14 50 % 25.20 1.14 13.93
(‐15%) (‐10%)
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Notes:
• A 310mm slab is borderline when EC2 span/effective depth showed 290 to be adequate.
• A 50% reinforcement increase is required to get the depth down to 290mm
• Cannot get anywhere near the 260 thick slab justified in BS8110 and EC2 span/eff depth when 50%
reinforcement is introduced.
• Adding 50% reinforcement is allowing something less than a 10% reduction in slab depth.
• Adding 50% reinforcement reduces deflections by 10 to 15% and seems to have less effect on the deflection
affecting the partitions.
• In all cases the deflection affecting partitions is very close to 50% of the permanent deflection.
• Decreasing slab depth by 6.5% results in deflection increase of 12%
Office Condition
control limit 12mm)
24mm)
290 14 28 0 % 24.80 5.24 10.56
7 14 0 % 26.45 5.56 11.13
275 7 14 0 % 28.59 6.00 12.45

7 14 50 % 24.67 4.42 11.90
(‐14%) (‐5%)
Notes:
• In offices 30% of the IL is assumed to be permanent
• The permanent deflection does not include instantaneous deflection from the balance of the IL.
• Permanent Deflection (not total deflection) is checked against the span/250 limit. This may seem
unconservative, however the end result is still conservative by comparison with EC2 span/effective depth.
• A 50% reinforcement increase only reduces the depth down to 275mm.
• Cannot get anywhere near the 255 thick slab justified in EC2 span/eff depth when 50% reinforcement is
introduced.
• In all cases the deflection affecting partitions is 40 to 50% of the permanent deflection.
• Decreasing slab depth by 5% results in deflection increase of 8%
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Comparison of Span / Eff depth checks for grade C35/45 concrete.
Design Slab As req'd Increase As Concrete Increased
Code Thickness for req'd for provided Saving % Reinforce
mm strength deflection mm2/m ment Cost
mm2/m control %
BS8110 290 825 4 % 894 ‐ ‐
260 885 30 % 1340 10 % 50 %
250 908 46 % 1340 14 % 50 %
240 933 71% 1608 17 % 80 %
EC2 250 923 2 % 1005

storage
225 1007 49 % 1608 10 % 60 %
EC2 office 230 943 6 % 1005

225 962 14 % 1149 2 % 14 %
Notes:
• EC2 offers very significant reductions by virtue of considering an increased concrete grade. This is generally
accepted in principle, there is however some debate as to the degree of this apparent advantage. (Ref Paper by
Alasdair Beal ‐ The Structural Engineer 20th October 2009)
• In this example the reduction of slab depth allowable using EC2 is as much as 20% (290mm down to 230mm). If
stiffness is assumed to be proportional to h3 then this corresponds to a 50% reduction in stiffness. If stiffness is
only assumed to be proportional to h2 then this still corresponds to a 35% reduction in stiffness. Was there a
35 to 50% margin of overdesign in BS8110? It seems a reasonable question.
• The benefit of adding 50% reinforcement is limited to around a 10% reduction in slab depth.
Rigorous Deflection Calculations for grade C35/45 concrete.
Rigorous deflection calculations are performed for both the storage and office loads.
General Notes on the Calculation Method
The notes made in relation to C20/25 concrete apply.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Storage Condition
control limit 12mm)
24mm)
260 14 28 0 % 24.02 0.24 14.77
7 14 0 % 24.35 1.15 12.77
250 7 14 0 % 27.89 0 15.85

7 14 50 % 22.41 0.89 12.71
(‐20%) (‐20%)
240 7 14 50 % 26.84 0 15.67
Notes:
• A 260mm slab is required when EC2 span/effective depth showed 250 to be adequate.
• A 50% reinforcement increase is required to get the depth down to 250mm
• Cannot get anywhere near the 225 thick slab justified in EC2 span/eff depth when 50% reinforcement is
introduced.
• Adding 50% reinforcement reduces deflections by 20%.
Office Condition
control limit 12mm)
24mm)
240 14 28 0 % 24.57 5.96 11.56
7 14 0 % 26.58 6.45 11.08
230 7 14 0 % 28.38 6.81 12.19
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation

control limit 12mm)
24mm)
7 14 50 % 24.50 4.90 11.65
(‐14%) (‐4%)
Notes:
• In offices 30% of the IL is assumed to be permanent
• The permanent deflection does not include instantaneous deflection from the balance of the IL.
• Permanent Deflection (not total deflection) is checked against the span/250 limit. This may seem
unconservative, however the end result is still conservative by comparison with EC2 span/effective depth.
• A 50% reinforcement increase reduces the depth down to 230mm.
• Cannot quite get down to the 225 thick slab justified in EC2 span/eff depth.
Deflection Estimates using Linear FE Analysis
Guidance on Short Term E values are given in the codes. It is made clear that there is potentially significant
variation in these values. Typical values for the concrete grades being considered in this document are:
BS8110 EC2
C20/25 25N/mm2 30
(Range 19 ‐ 31) (Range ‐ 30% to + 20%)
C35/45 29N/mm2 34
(Range 23 ‐ 35) (Range ‐ 30% to + 20%)
To give an estimate of total deflection that can be compared to the span/250 limit it is recommended that the short
term values indicated above are significantly reduced to allow for effects of creep, cracking and shrinkage. General
guidance on this has been:
Storage Condition ‐ Reduce by a factor of 6
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Office Condition ‐ Reduce by a factor of 4
Therefore, an FE analysis can be carried out using the adjusted E values and deflection contours can be reviewed.
For this example the total deflection limit = 6000/250 = 24mm
Example results using the above guidance are given below.
FE Analysis Results for C20/25
Storage Condition (EC2 material properties)
Slab Deflection
290 23.0
280 25.1
Office Condition (EC2 material properties)
Slab Deflection
270 18.3
260 20.1
250 22.2
240 24.6
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
FE Analysis Results for C35/45
Storage Condition (EC2 material properties)
Slab Deflection
280 22.1
270 24.2
260 26.6
250 29.3
Office Condition (EC2 material properties)
Slab Deflection
230 24.1
240 21.7
Overall Summary of Minimum Slab Depths
The table below shows the minimum depths that could be considered adequate for each of the examples under
consideration. In all cases reinforcement is not being added in order to control deflection.
Concrete Usage BS8110spa EC2 span/ EC2 Linear FE E Linear FE E

n/depth depth Rigorous as EC2 as BS8110
C20/25 Storage 290 290 310 290 310
C20/25 Office 290 270 290 240 * 260
C35/45 Storage 290 250 260 270 290
C35/45 Office 290 230 240 230 250
Notes:
• In every case rigorous deflection estimation cannot justify the slab depths that are considered adequate based
on EC2 span / effective depth.
• For the storage condition the E/6 adjustment to stiffness results in very reasonable slab depths being deemed
adequate.
• For the office condition the E/4 adjustment leads to a slab that is definitely too thin in one case (*). In general
this advice seems quite reasonable / borderline when the adjustment is applied to the BS8110 properties. It
may not be completely adequate as Engineers move to the use of EC2 properties in analysis models. E/5 may
be better advice for the office situation.
Summary
Key observations from this exercise and all other work done on this topic are:
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
1. BS8110 span /effective depths appear to assume a low grade of concrete and do not differentiate between
different loading conditions. It seems logical that the depths given by BS8110 will be conservative when higher
grades of concrete are used and when the loading is transient rather than sustained.
2. EC2 span /effective depths deal with this and seem to allow significantly reduced slab depths when both of
these factors are introduced. The magnitude of the benefit introduced by EC2 is open to some debate.
3. Rigorous deflection estimation:
• Does introduce benefits compared to BS8110 when higher concrete grades are considered.
• Is never able to justify the slab depths that are considered adequate based on EC2 span / effective depth.
• In general it seems that at least 50% extra reinforcement needs to be added in order to match the thicknesses
deemed adequate by span / effective depth
4. Deflection Checks based on Linear FE estimation:
• Does introduce benefits compared to BS8110 when higher concrete grades are considered.
• Is generally not able to justify the slab depths that are considered adequate based on EC2 span / effective
depth.
• For office loading situations the suggested E/4 adjustment should be used cautiously, E/5 may be a more
prudent minimum adjustment, especially if the higher short term E values introduced in EC2 are assumed as the
starting point.
5. If reinforcement is added in order to reduce slab depth:
• Adding reinforcement has an impact but it is not significant and may not be economic.
• Adding 50% to the tension reinforcement will allow slab depth to be reduced by less than 10%. (Typically only
20mm for slabs up to around 300mm thick)
6. If reinforcement is added in order to reduce deflection:
• Calculations suggest that adding 50% to the tension reinforcement will reduce total deflection by 10 to 20%.
• Where concern relates more to the deflection occurring after the introduction of walls and other sensitive/
brittle finishes then adding 50% to the tension reinforcement has less impact ‐ perhaps only 5 to 10%.
7. Adjusting the slab depth has the greatest direct impact of deflection.
• Rigorous calcs suggest a 5 to 10% reduction in depth leads to a 10 to 20% increase in deflection.
8. Where concern relates to the estimation of deflection affecting brittle finishes:
• In theory this is significantly affected by construction stage events and the time at which the brittle finish is
applied.
• The concrete centre spreadsheet may be used to determine the reasonable ratio between this deflection and
total deflection. For the examples considered this ratio varied from 40 to 60%. For each specific example the
variation of this ratio was less than 10%.
• Based on this the maximum deflections affecting brittle finishes can be estimated to some reasonable degree of
accuracy.
9. Overall Accuracy:
• It has to be remembered that regardless of the apparent sophistication of deflection estimate techniques,
estimates are still estimates and a significant margin of uncertainty exists.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 32 : Linking and Merging Projects
Chapter 32 Linking and Merging Projects
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the reasons why, and the way in which, model linking and merging is used in
Orion. Although the two features are related they are used for quite different purposes:
• Linking Models for Common Foundation Design
• Merging (Complete) Models
Note The Merging (Complete) Models feature has yet to be enabled in the market version of the
program.
Why Merge Models?
Model merging allows an engineer working on one project to import an entire model that has been created
separately. The two models can be combined to create a single large project and once created there will be no
cross reference or linking back to the source project(s). This feature allows:
• More than one engineer to work on the creation of model data for a large project.
• Where there is repetition of the floor plan within a project, a standard sub‐section can be defined and then
merged several times to create the full model (in effect a "copy/paste" function).
• Model relocation ‐ If for whatever reason a model has been created a great distance from the origin, it can be
relocated to a more convenient position. The original model is simply merged into a new empty model using
the offsets, once again emulating a "copy/paste" function.
Why Link Models for Common Foundation Design?
• Separate blocks of buildings (they are separated because of shrinkage issues or seismic reasons) are modelled
in different projects in practice. They are modelled separately because, they require separate post‐analysis
controls (Soft Storey, Weak Storey, torsion control, hammering checks, additional eccentricities etc.)
• Statically, free chunks of uncoupled 3D systems in space will yield the same analysis results regardless of
separate modelling. However, modelling those together will make the model unnecessarily crowded.
• There will be separate blocks of buildings in a large construction complex. Some of these blocks are identical.
Engineers tend to analyse and design only one of those blocks. The typical project is then used for other similar
blocks.
• Linking models allows a common foundation to be modelled for these kinds of buildings. Separate models are
maintained for each block, one of the models contains a common foundation which links to the other models.
How is Linked Foundation Design Data Introduced?
• In any project, links to one or more other models can be made so that a common foundation system analysis
and design is possible. The project in which the links are created (the 'foundation project'), becomes the one in
which the foundation design for all the linked models is undertaken.
• Not all members or storeys are transferred from the linked models ‐ only the supported columns and walls at
foundation level, with their loadings.
• The project in which the links are created is not restricted in any way ‐ you are free to construct, analyse and
design the model in the usual way. The foundation columns and walls from the linked models do not get
considered in the Building Analysis or Post Analysis processes, they are only considered in the foundation
design.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
• It is not essential to define any superstructure model for the foundation project, you are able to link from a
blank (master) project to other projects if you prefer to do so.
• Models that are linked in to the foundation project can be re‐located by translation but not rotation. You are
responsible for setting up the source models at the appropriate relative angles.
• During linking the foundation design forces created in the linked model populate a foundation forces data table
thus creating a complete composite set of data which can be used in foundation design.
• At foundation level, new slabs, beams and foundation systems are able to be defined as required.
What is a Linked Column?
• Columns that have been imported by linking read their analysis results directly from the linked model. Analysis
results of linked columns cannot be changed unless a force override is applied.
• If the position of the column in the linked model is altered then the link will be broken in foundation project.
• Columns can be deleted.
What is a Force Override?
• Whether linked or not, you are able to apply force overrides to columns for the purposes of foundation design.
• Force overrides are applied via the The Foundation Forces Table.
• For a linked column the link to it's original project is retained, however, the analysis results are overridden.
• You can select to cancel the override operation at a later stage. In which case, the analysis results will be
restored from the linked model.
What is Link Deletion?
• You can if required completely break the relation of the column with the linked model. The column becomes
part of the foundation project and you are then able to change the section and analysis results.
Creating a Foundation Project
Requirements for Models to be Linked for Foundation Design
The models should have same load cases and combinations.
Procedure for Linking Existing Models into a Foundation Project
1. Open the project in which you want to create the foundation.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
2. From the File menu choose Model/File Import, Load Building Model.
The following dialog is displayed;
3. Select the model to import. Note that models can reside in different drives and directories of the computer.
4. Enter a Block Character for the imported model.
5. Choose whether the imported columns and walls are to have the block character added to their reference, or if
they are to retain their existing labels (where this is possible).
6. Click the Load Model button.
7. Initially the axes for the linked model will be loaded as a ghost picture.
8. Before import, the linked model must be located in its correct position on the foundation project.
9. Rough positioning can be done by clicking the Drag Two Points button. Click Move Model to see the effect.
10. Fine tuning can be done by entering X and Y entries directly. Again click Move Model to see the effect.
11. Click Finish to import the model.
Imported Grids
When a new model is linked into the foundation project, the grid system is merged first. That is, colinear and
overlapping grids are combined, the existing parent grid is taken as the reference.
In this way, since the existing grid system is not changed, the references of columns inserted before will stay
unchanged.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Imported Columns (and Walls)
Determination of Insertion Points —
1. The new co‐ordinates for the insertion point of each imported column are determined.
2. The imported columns are then placed on to the merged grid system at these co‐ordinates.
3. The axes used to define the insertion point of each imported column are automatically reselected. The first
two axes which pass through the insertion point are found by the program and assigned to the column.
Note If three or more axes pass through the insertion point, the axes adopted by the column in the
imported model may differ from the original model.
Linked Project Manager
The Linked Project Manager is used to monitor the status of all linked/unlinked models within the project:
If one of the linked projects is highlighted, the Link Management button becomes active. When clicked the
following dialog is displayed:
Remove the Reference of the Selected Project
Two options are available:
Delete All Columns and Walls of the Selected Project. — This option removes the link to the highlighted
project and deletes the associated columns and walls.
Un‐link All Columns and Walls of the Selected Project — This option removes the link to the highlighted
project but the columns and walls are not deleted. You have the option to retain the existing analysis forces, or
to delete them, in which case they can be respecified via the Foundation Column Loads Table.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Update the Link Information of All Columns and Walls of the Selected Project
This option deletes any user defined loads in the highlighted project.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Chapter 33 : Reports and Drawing Output
Chapter 33 Reports and Drawing Output
Introduction
Various forms of output can be generated from the program:
Orion Reports
These can printed individually, or combined together using the Report Manager.
Quantity Reports
These can either be printed directly, or exported to Microsoft Access or Excel.
Drawings
These can either be plotted directly, or exported to DXF
Orion Reports
Orion Reports can be created from each of the modules. The main reports are formatted and consist of a header &
footer and a main body containing text, graphics and/or tables.
From the Report Print Preview the report can be configured and printed, or it can saved for later printing via the
Report Manager, (allowing it to be merged together with other Orion Reports).
Options also exist for exporting the report to different formats as follows:
PDF — Saves the report in pdf format.
TXT — opens the report in a text editor, but strips out any formatting. Reports containing graphics can not be
opened in a text editor.
TDF — Exports as a TAB delimited file.
Note Certain data output (e.g. the FE Analysis Output Report) is unlikely to form part of your
calculation submission and is only created as plain text ‐ it cannot therefore be incorporated
into a formatted report.
The following table summarises the main reports available:
Module Report Type

Load Decomposition Output Report Plain text
Building Analysis Storey Loads Plain text
Building Analysis Validity Check Plain text
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Module Report Type

Building Analysis Analysis Output Report Formatted
4 configurations available as follows:
• Nodal Results
• Frame Element Results
• Shell Element Results
• Structural Member Results
Building Analysis Axial Load Comparison Report Formatted
and FE Analysis
Building Analysis Pre‐Analysis Checks Report Formatted
Building Analysis Post‐Analysis Checks Report Formatted
Building Analysis Analysis Model Echo Report Formatted
2 configurations available (via Model
Options/Settings):
• Basic
• Detailed
Building Analysis Storey Lateral Displacements Report Formatted
Building Analysis Column Bracing (Sway) Classification Formatted
Building Analysis Eigenvalue Results Report Formatted
Building Analysis Beam Load Analysis Report Formatted
FE Analysis Output Report Plain text
Column Design Column Capacity Analyses Formatted
Column Design Column (utilisation) Table Plain text
Column Design Column Reinforcement Design Report Formatted
Column Design Column Forces Listing Plain text
Column Design Interactive Design Report Plain text
Beam Design Beam Capacity Analysis Formatted
Beam Design Beam (utilisation) Table Plain text
Beam Design Beam Reinforcement Design Report Formatted
Slab Strip Slab Strip Check Design Plain text
Slab Analysis and Slab Analysis and Design Report Formatted
Design
Column Punching Column Punching Check Plain text
Check
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Module Report Type

Pad/Pile Footing Pad/Pile Footing Results Formatted
Strip Footing Strip Footing Results Formatted
Stair Design Stair Design Results Plain Text
Quantity Extraction 7 extraction tables are available as Formatted
Tables follows:
• Concrete Quantity Extractions
• Formwork Quantity Table
• Slab Steel Bars Table
• Column/Wall Steel Bar Table
• Beam Steel Bars Table
• Rib Beam Steel Bars Table
• Foundation Beam Steel Bars Table
Report Manager
Formatted reports (once generated by the different modules), will be listed in the Report Manager. Three options
exist for creating a combined report.
All Reports
With this option selected, individual reports can be selected and added to a combined report.
Txt Files
With this option selected, only those formatted reports that can be displayed as text files will be listed. Individual
reports can be selected and added to a combined report, however all formatting and graphics will be stripped from
this report.
Merged Report
If the All Reports option has been previously used to create one or more combined reports and these reports have
themselves been saved, then with this option selected, these combined reports can be merged with each other.
Quantity Reports
Quantity Reports can be created for concrete, formwork and steel bars.
By clicking on the Quantity Extraction Tables icon (or from the menu File/Quantity Extraction Tables), formatted
reports can be created and printed or the data can be exported to either Microsoft Access or Excel.
Note Steel bar schedules are only available for those members/slab strips that have been
successfully designed.
2013 Version 18
Orion Documentation
Drawings
The following table summarises the kinds of drawing available:
Module Drawings
Form Plan 1. General arrangements and sections including slab
reinforcement and dimensions. Slab steel quantity tables
can optionally be included.
2. Flat slab general arrangements including area of steel
contours.
3. Flat slab punching shear perimeters.
Column Application 1. Reinforcement in column and wall sections, optionally
Plan including:
• Steel quantity tables
• Longitudinal steel details
• Lateral steel displayed near columns
• Lateral steel grouped
Foundation Details 1. Pad and pile footing reinforcement and dimensions.
Optionally including a steel quantity table.
Column Design 1. Column Schedule. Includes reinforcement in column and
wall sections arranged by member label for each storey.
Column Design 1. Column Detail Drawings (in elevation).
Beam Design 1. Beam Detail Drawings. Beam reinforcement in elevation
and section. Optionally including a steel quantity table.
2013 Version 18

Engineers Handbook PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Engineers Handbook PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Engineer’s

Malaysia Australia International Enquiries

Chapter 6 Eigenvalue Analysis . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Chapter 7 Staged Construction Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Chapter 8 Analysis and Design using FE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Chapter 9 Building Sway and Differential Axial Deformation Effects . . . . . . 164

Chapter 10 Wall Modelling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Chapter 11 Sway Deflection Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Chapter 12 Overview of Bracing and Sway Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . 182

Chapter 13 Overview of Differential Axial Deformation Effects in 3D Analysis of Buildings . 194

Chapter 14 Using Staged Construction Analysis to Emulate ‘Traditional’ Design . . . . 221

Chapter 15 Design and Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Chapter 16 Slab Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Chapter 17 Beam Design to BS8110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Chapter 19 Column Design to BS8110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Chapter 20 Wall Design and Detailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Chapter 21 Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

Chapter 22 Design of RC Beam‐Column Joints to HK Code of Practice 2004 . . . . . 359

Chapter 23 Solution Options for Inclined/Lowered Members . . . . . . . . 371

Chapter 24 Overview of Solution Options for Transfer Levels . . . . . . . . 398

Chapter 25 Transfer Beams – General Method . . . . . . . . . . . 400

Chapter 26 Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 1 (Simplest) . . . . . . . . 432

Chapter 27 Transfer Beams – FE Method, Option 2 . . . . . . . . . . 446

Chapter 28 Solution Option for Transfer Slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

Chapter 29 Flat Slab Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467

Chapter 30 Column Punching Shear Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . 482

Chapter 31 Slab Deflection Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522

Chapter 32 Linking and Merging Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533

Chapter 33 Reports and Drawing Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538

Orion modelling, analysis and design flowchart

1. Slab design based on tabulated code coefficients

4.1 4.2 4.3

Curved Beam formed from 6 segments

Curved Beam formed from 12 segments

Preview with Axis Segments Drawn External

Preview with Axis Segments Drawn Internal

Twenty Four Segments

Deflection Hogging Sagging

2nd beam with

Changing the Depth of the Beam

2nd beam with

End Conditions Application Filter Options

End Conditions Application Filter Options

AXIAL LOAD COMPARISON REPORT

SUM OF APPLIED LOADS (Using Un-Decomposed Slab Loads):

Storey Column ShearWall Beam Slab Rib Total

Storey Column ShearWall Beam Slab Rib Total

SUM OF APPLIED LOADS (After Decomposing Slab Loads):

Storey Column ShearWall Beam Slab Rib Total

Storey Column ShearWall Beam Slab Rib Total

BUILDING ANALYSIS COLUMN/SHEARWALL AXIAL LOADS:

FINITE ELEMENTS ANALYSIS COLUMN/SHEARWALL AXIAL LOADS:

Storey Column ShearWall Beam Slab Rib Total

Columns Self Weight = 0.25 m x 0.5 m x 2.8 m(height) x 24 kN/m 3 x 4(nos)

Storey Column ShearWall Beam Slab Rib Total

Storey Column ShearWall Beam Slab Rib Total

SUM OF APPLIED LOADS (After Decomposing Slab Loads):

Storey Column ShearWall Beam Slab Rib Total

Storey Column ShearWall Beam Slab Rib Total

Storey G Delta G Q Delta Q

FINITE ELEMENTS ANALYSIS COLUMN/SHEARWALL AXIAL LOADS:

Storey G Delta G Q Delta Q

C of G based on Un-decomposed Slab Loads, m = 553t