Design Verification

SAP2000 Software Verification
Examples
.
Design
Verification Examples
SAP2000®
Integrated Software for
Structural Analysis and Design
Computers & Structures, Inc.

Berkeley, California, USA Version 12.00
June 2008
Copyright
The computer program ETABS, SAP2000 and all associated documentation are proprietary and
copyrighted products. Worldwide rights of ownership rest with Computers and Structures, Inc.
Unlicensed use of the program or reproduction of the documentation in any form, without prior written
authorization from Computers and Structures, Inc., is explicitly prohibited.
Copyright © Computers and Structures, Inc., 1978-2008

All rights reserved.
The CSI Logo® and SAP2000® are registered trademarks of Computers and Structures, Inc.
The computer program SAP2000® and all associated documentation are proprietary and copyrighted
products. Worldwide rights of ownership rest with Computers and Structures, Inc. Unlicensed use of
these programs or reproduction of documentation in any form, without prior written authorization from
Computers and Structures, Inc., is explicitly prohibited.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a
database or retrieval system, without the prior explicit written permission of the publisher.
Further information and copies of this documentation may be obtained from:
Computers and Structures, Inc.

1995 University Avenue
Berkeley, California 94704 USA
Phone: (510) 649-2200

FAX: (510) 649-2299
e-mail: info@csiberkeley.com (for general questions)
e-mail: support@csiberkeley.com (for technical support questions)
web: www.csiberkeley.com
DISCLAIMER
CONSIDERABLE TIME, EFFORT AND EXPENSE HAVE GONE INTO THE

DEVELOPMENT AND DOCUMENTATION OF ETABS AND SAP2000. THE PROGRAMS
HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY TESTED AND USED. IN USING THE PROGRAMS,
HOWEVER, THE USER ACCEPTS AND UNDERSTANDS THAT NO WARRANTY IS
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY THE DEVELOPERS OR THE DISTRIBUTORS ON THE
ACCURACY OR THE RELIABILITY OF THE PROGRAM.
THE USER MUST EXPLICITLY UNDERSTAND THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE

PROGRAM AND MUST INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE RESULTS.
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 0
CONTENTS
Introduction
Methodology
Acceptance Criteria
Summary of Examples
Matrix of Program Features Covered in Example Problems
Examples
Concrete
ACI 318-05
Moment Strength Using Equivalent
Example ACI318-05 CO-FR-001
Rectangular Stress Distribution
Example ACI318-05 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
ACI 318-02
ACI 318-99
UCB 97
Example UBC 97 CO-FR-001
Example UBC 97 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
CONTENTS - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
BS8110-89
Example BS8110-89 CO-FR-001
Example BS8110-89 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
BS8110-97
Example BS8110-97 CO-FR-001
Example BS8110-97 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
CSA A23.3-04
Example A23.3-04 CO-FR-001
Example A23.3-04 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
CSA A23.3-94
Example A23.3-94 CO-FR-001
Example A23.3-94 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
Eurocode 2-92
Example Eurocode 2-92 CO-FR-001
Example Eurocode 2-92 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
Indian IS456-00
Example Indian IS456-00 CO-FR-001
Example Indian IS456-00 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
Italian DM 14-92
Example Italian DM 14-92 CO-FR-001
Example Italian Dm 14-92 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
Mexican RCDF-01
Example Mexican RCDF-01 CO-FR-001
Example Mexican RCDF-01 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
CONTENTS - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
NZS 3101-95
Example NZS 3101-95 CO-FR-001
Example NZS 3101-95 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
Hong Kong CP-04

Example Hong Kong CP-04 CO-FR-001
Example Hong Kong CP-04 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
Korean KCI-99
Example Korean KCI-99 CO-FR-001
Example Korean KCI-99 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
Sinapore CP65-99
Example Singapore CP65-99 CO-FR-001
Example Singapore CP65-99 CO-FR-002 Colum Design Check
Steel
AISC LRFD-93
Example AISC LRFD-93 ST-FR-001
Example AISC LRFD-93 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
AISC LRFD-99
Example AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-001
Example AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
AISC ASD-89
Example AISC ASD-89 ST-FR-001
Example AISC ASD-89 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
CONTENTS - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
AISC ASD-01
Example AISC ASD-01 ST-FR-001
Example AISC ASD-01 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
AISC 360/IBC06
Example AISC 360/IBC06 ST-FR-001
Example AISC 360/IBC06 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
UBC LRFD 97
Example UBC LRFD 97 ST-FR-001
Example UBC LRFD 97 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
UBC ASD 97
Example UBC ASD 97 ST-FR-001
Example UBC ASD 97 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
BS 5950-1990
Example BS 5950-1990 ST-FR-001
Example BS 5950-1990 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
BS 5950-2000
Example BS 5950-2000 ST-FR-001
Example BS 5950-2000 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
CAN/CSA-S16 01
Example CAN/CSA-S16 01 ST-FR-001
Example CAN/CSA-S16 01 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
Eurocode 3 93
Example EC 3 1993 ST-FR-001
Example EC 3 1993 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
CONTENTS - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
Italian UNI 10011

Example Italian UNI 10011 ST-FR-001
Example Italian UNI 10011 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
Indian IS:800 98
Example Indian IS:800 98 ST-FR-001
Example Indian IS:800 98 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
API RP2A-LFRD 97
Example API RP2A-LRFD 97 ST-FR-001
Example API RP2A-LRFD 97 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
API RP2A-WSD
Example API RP2A-WSD ST-FR-001
Example API RP2A-WSD ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
ASCE 10-97
Example ASCE 10-97 ST-FR-001
Example ASCE 10-97 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
AISI-ASD 96
Example AISI-ASD 96 ST-FR-001
Example AISI-ASD 96 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
AISI-LRFD 96
Example AISI-LRFD 96 ST-FR-001
Example AISI-LRFD 96 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
AA-ASD 2000
Example AA-ASD 2000 ST-FR-001
Example AA-ASD 2000 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
CONTENTS - 5
REVISION NO.: 0
AA-LRFD 2000
Example AA-LRFD 2000 ST-FR-001
Example AA-LRFD 2000 ST-FR-002 Colum Design Check
Cold-Formed Steel
AISI-ASD-96
Example AISI-ASD CF-FR-001 Hat Section - Bending and Compression
Braced C-Section with Lips Bending and
Example AISI-ASD CF-FR-002
Compression
AISI-LRFD-96
Example AISI-LFRD CF-FR-001 Hat Section - Bending and Compression
Braced C-Section with Lips Bending and
Example AISI-LFRD CF-FR-002
Compression
Aluminum
AA-ASD 2000
Example AA-ASD-00 ALT-FR-001 Design of Simply Support I-Beam
Design of A round Tubular Column to
Example AA- ASD-00 ALT-FR-002
Support an Axial Compression Load
AA-LRFD 2000
Example AA-LRFD-00 AL-FR-001 Design of Simply Support I-Beam
Design of A round Tubular Column to
Example AA-LRFD-00 AL-FR-002
Support an Axial Compression Load
References
PCA Notes on 318-05 Building Code, Requirements for Structural Concrete with
Design Applications, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, August
2005
CONTENTS - 6
REVISION NO.: 0
INTRODUCTION
This manual presents a set of simple building systems that have been analyzed using
SAP2000 V12. The examples demonstrate some of the concrete design capabilities of
the SAP2000 software. For purposes of verification, key results produced by programs
are compared to independent published sources. The examples cover the design of
different beam and column elements.
For each example, this manual contains a short description of the problem; a list of
significant programs options activated; and a comparison of key results with published
design results. The input data file for each example is provided on the SAP2000 CD-
ROM.
INTRODUCTION - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive series of test problems, or examples, designed to test the various

elements and design features of the program were created. The results produced by the
program were compared to independent published sources. The comparison of the
SAP2000 results with results obtained from independent sources is provided in tabular
form as part of each example.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
The comparison of the SAP2000 validation and verification example results with
independent results is typically characterized in one of the following three ways.
¾ Exact: There is no difference between the SAP2000 results and the independent
results within the larger of the accuracy of the typical SAP2000 output and the
accuracy of the independent result.
¾ Acceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference between
the SAP2000 results and the independent results does not exceed five percent
(5%). For internal force and stress values, the difference between the SAP2000
results and the independent results does not exceed ten percent (10%).
¾ Unacceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference

between the SAP2000 results and the independent results exceeds five percent
(5%). For experimental values, the difference between the SAP2000 results and
the independent results exceeds twenty five percent (25%).
The percentage difference between results is typically calculated using the following
formula:
S A P 2 0 0 0 R e su lt
P e rc e n t D iffe re n c e = 1 0 0 -1
In d e p e n d e n t R e su lt
METHODOLOGY - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-93 ST-FR-001
FRAME – SIMPLY SUPPORTED STEEL BEAM
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The design flexural strengths are checked for the beam shown below. Three
checks are made based on unsupported lengths of 5ft, 13.33ft and 40ft. This
example was independently check by comparing the results of Example 5.2 in the
3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, pages 5-16 to 5-20
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING
Member Properties Loading Geometry

W18X50 w = 0.45 klf (D) Span, L = 40 ft
Fy = 50 ksi w = 0.75 klf (L)
E = 29000 ksi
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

¾ Design flexural moment capacities, φb M n .
¾ Unsupported length factors
¾ Non-Compact section checks
EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-93 ST-FR-001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are comparing with the results of Example 5.2 in the 3rd
Edition, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, pages 5-16 to 5-20.
Percent
Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
φb M n ( Lb =5ft) k-ft 398.353 k-ft 398 k-ft 0.09%
φb M n ( Lb =13.33t) k-ft 305.300 k-ft 306 k-ft 0.23%
φb M n ( Lb =40ft) k-ft 69.533 k-ft 70.2 k-ft 0.96%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-001
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
COLUMN- SIMPLY SUPPORTED
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A check of the column adequacy is checked for combined axial compression and
flexural loads. The column is 14 ft tall and loaded with an axial load,
Pu = 1400 kips and bending, M ux , M uy = 200k-ft and 70k-ft, respectively. The
column demand/capacity ratio is checked against the results of Example 6.2 in
the 3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, pages 6-6 to 6-8.
H = 15'
A A
Section A-A

W18X50 P = 70 kips (D) Height, H = 15 ft
Fy = 50 ksi P = 210 kips (L)
E = 29000 ksi

REVISION NO.: 0
¾ LRFD Specification Equation H1-1a

¾ Calculation of φc Pn , φb M nx and φb M ny
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are from Example 6.2 in the 3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of
Steel Construction, pages 6-6 to 6-8.
Percent
D/C ratio 0.974 0.973 0.10%
φc Pn k 1937.844 1940 0.11%
φb M nx k-ft 1200 1200 0.00%
φb M ny k-ft 600.478 611 1.72%
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The design flexural strengths are checked for the beam shown below. Three
checks are made based on unsupported lengths of 5ft, 13.33ft and 40ft. This
example was independently check by comparing the results of Example 5.2 in the
3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, pages 5-16 to 5-20.

W18X50 w = 0.45 klf (D) Span, L = 40 ft
Fy = 50 ksi w = 0.75 klf (L)
E = 29000 ksi

¾ Unsupported length factors
¾ Non-Compact section checks

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are comparing with the results of Example 5.2 in the 3rd
Edition, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, pages 5-16 to 5-20.
Percent
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
COLUMN- SIMPLY SUPPORTED
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A check of the column adequacy is checked for combined axial compression and
flexural loads. The column is 14 ft tall and loaded with an axial load,
Pu = 1400 kips and bending, M ux , M uy = 200k-ft and 70k-ft r, respectively. The
column demand/capacity ratio is checked against the results of Example 6.2 in
the 3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, pages 6-6 to 6-8.
H = 15'
A A
Section A-A

Fy = 50 ksi P = 210 kips (L)
E = 29000 ksi
¾ LRFD Specification Equation H1-1a

¾ Calculation of φc Pn , φb M nx and φb M ny

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are from Example 6.2 in the 3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of
Steel Construction, pages 6-6 to 6-8.
Percent
D/C ratio 0.974 0.973 0.10%
φc Pn k 1937.844 1940 0.11%
φb M nx k-ft 1200 1200 0.00%
φb M ny k-ft 600.478 611 1.72%
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE AISC ASD-89 ST-FR-001
MOMENT FRAME – (SIDESWAY UNINHIBITED)
Example Description
The beam below is subjected to a bending moment of 20 kip-ft. The compression
flange is braced at 3.0 ft intervals. Three members were included in an auto
select list that are: W6X12, M10X9 and W8X10. The selected member is non
compact due to flange criteria.

W18X50 w = 0.45 klf (D) Span, L = 40 ft
Fy = 50 ksi w = 0.75 klf (L)
E = 29000 ksi
¾ Design Allowable Bending Stress, Fb.

¾ Design Stress, fb
EXAMPLE AISC ASD-89 ST-FR-001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
Results Comparison
Independent results are taken from Allowable Stress Design Manual of Steel
Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Page 2-6.
Percent
Design Allowable Bending 32.705 32.7 0.02%

Stress, Fb (ksi)
Bending Stress, fa (ksi) 30.420 30.7 0.92%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC ASD-89 ST-FR-001
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
Example Description
The column design features for the AISC ASD-89 code are checked for the frame
shown below. This frame is presented in the Allowable Stress Design Manual of
Steel Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Pages 3-6 and 3-7. The
column K factors were overwritten in ETABS to a value of 2.13 to match the
example. The transverse direction was assumed to be continuously supported.
Two point loads of 560 kips are applied at the tops of each column. The ratio of
allow axial stress, Fa, to the actual, fa, was checked and compared to the
referenced design code.
H = 15'
A A
Section A-A

Fy = 50 ksi P = 210 kips (L)
E = 29000 ksi

REVISION NO.: 0
¾ Design Allowable Stress, Fa.

¾ Design Stress, fa
Results Comparison
Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Pages 3-6 and 3-7.
Percent
Design Allowable Stress, Fa (ksi) 16.468 16.47 0.01%
Allowable Stress, fa (ksi) 15.873 15.86 0.06%
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
Example Description
The beam below is subjected to a bending moment of 20 kip-ft. The compression
flange is braced at 3.0 ft intervals. Three members were included in an auto
select list that are: W6X12, M10X9 and W8X10. The selected member is non
compact due to flange criteria.

W18X50 w = 0.45 klf (D) Span, L = 40 ft
Fy = 50 ksi w = 0.75 klf (L)
E = 29000 ksi
¾ Design Allowable Bending Stress, Fb.

¾ Design Stress, fb

REVISION NO.: 0
Results Comparison
Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Page 2-6.
Percent
Design Allowable Bending 32.705 32.7 0.02%

Stress, Fb (ksi)
Bending Stress, fa (ksi) 30.420 30.7 0.92%
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
Example Description
The column design features for the AISC ASD-89 code are checked for the frame
shown below. This frame is presented in the Allowable Stress Design Manual of
Steel Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Pages 3-6 and 3-7. The
column K factors were overwritten in SAP2000 to a value of 2.13 to match the
example. The transverse direction was assumed to be continuously supported.
Two point loads of 560 kips are applied at the tops of each column. The ratio of
allow axial stress, Fa, to the actual, fa, was checked and compared to the
referenced design code.
P P
A A
H = 15'
L = 20'

W12X120 P = 560 kips (D)+(L) Span, L = 20 ft
Fy = 50 ksi Height, H = 15 ft
E = 29000 ksi
¾ Design Allowable Stress, Fa.

¾ Design Stress, fa

REVISION NO.: 0
Results Comparison
Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Pages 3-6 and 3-7.
Percent
Design Allowable Stress, 16.468 16.47 0.01%

Fa (ksi)
Allowable Stress, fa (ksi) 15.873 15.86 0.06%
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE AISC360-05/IBC2006 ST-FR-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The design flexural strengths are checked for the beam shown below. The beam is loaded with a
uniform load of 0.45 klf (D) and 0.75 klf (L). The flexural moment capacity is checked for three
unsupported lengths in the weak direction, Lb = 5 ft, 13.33 ft and 40 ft.
w A
A
L Section A-A

W18X50 w = 0.45 klf (D) Span, L = 40 ft
Fy = 50 ksi w = 0.75 klf (L)
E = 29000 ksi

EXAMPLE AISC360-05/IBC2006 ST-FR-001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are from Example F.1-2a from the AISC Design Examples, Volume 13.0 on
the application of the 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-
05).
Percent
COMPUTER FILE: AISC360-05_IBC2006 ST-FR-001
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE AISC360-05/IBC2006 ST-FR-002
COLUMN – SIMPLY SUPPORTED
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The demand capacity ratio is calculated for the column shown below. An axial load of 70 kips
(D) and 210 kips (L). is applied to a simply supported column with a height of 15 ft.
H = 15'
A A
Section A-A

Fy = 50 ksi P = 210 kips (L)
E = 29000 ksi

REVISION NO.: 0
¾ Demand/capacity, D/C ratio

¾ Calculation of the warping constant, C w
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are from Example E.2, AISC Design Examples, Volume 13.0 on the
application of the 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-05).
Percent
D/C ratio 0.830 0.832 0.24%
C w in^6 5462.583 5470 0.14%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC360-05_IBC2006 ST-FR-002
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE BS 5950-1990 ST-FR-001
FRAME – BEAM MOMENT AND SHEAR CAPACITY
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object moment and shear strength is tested in this example.
In the example a simply supported beam is laterally restrained along its full
length and is subjected to a uniform factored load of 69 kN/m and a factored
point load at midspan of 136 kN. This example was tested using the BS 5950-
1990 steel frame design code. The moment and shear strengths are compared
with independent hand calculated results.
CL A
A
Section A-A
6.5 m
Material Properties Loading Design Properties

E = 205x106 kN/m2 W = 65.25 kN/M fy = 275 MPa
v = 0.3 P = 129 kN
G = 78846154 kN/m2

¾ Steel frame section optimization
¾ Moment capacity, Mc
¾ Shear capacity, Pv
EXAMPLE BS 5950-1990 ST-FR-001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated based on the methods in Example 2 on
page 5 of the SCI Publication P326, Steelwork Design Guide to BS5950-1:2000
Volume 2: Worked Examples by M.D. Heywood & J.B. Lim.
Percent
Optimized Section UB533x210x92 UB533x210x92 0%
Design Moment (kN-m) 585.4 585 -0.07%
Design Shear (kN) 292.3 292 -0.10%
Moment Capacity (kN-m) 649.0 649 0%
Shear Capacity (kN) 888.4 888 -0.05%
COMPUTER FILE: BS 5950-1990 ST-FR-001
CONCLUSION
results.
EXAMPLE BS 5950-1990 ST-FR-001 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0

FRAME – DESIGN OF TUBULAR COLUMN FOR BIAXIAL LOADING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial and moment strengths are tested in this example.
In this example a continuous column is subjected factored loads and moments

N= 640 kN; Mx= 10.5 kN-m; My= 0.66 kN-m. The moment on the column is
caused by eccentric beam connections. This example was tested using the BS
5950-1990 steel frame design code. The design capacities are compared with
independent hand calculated results.

640 kN
Mx= 10.5 kN-m

My= 0.66 kN-m
A A
5m
Section A-A

E = 205x106 kN/m2 N = 640 kN fy = 355 MPa
v = 0.3 Mx = 10.5 kN-m
G = 78846154 kN/m2 My = 0.66 kN-m

¾ Steel column capacity
EXAMPLE BS 5950-1990 ST-FR-002 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated based on the methods in Example 15 on
page 83 of the SCI Publication P326, Steelwork Design Guide to BS5950-1:2000
Volume 2: Worked Examples by M.D. Heywood & J.B. Lim.
Percent
Optimized Section RHS150x150x6.3 RHS150x150x6.3 0%
Axial Capacity (kN) 773.2 773 -0.03%
Bending Capacity (kN-m) 68.3 68.2 -0.15%
CONCLUSION
results.
EXAMPLE BS 5950-1990 ST-FR-002 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
length and is subjected to a uniform factored load of 69 kN/m and a factored
point load at midspan of 136 kN. This example was tested using the BS 5950-
2000 steel frame design code. The moment and shear strengths are compared
with independent hand calculated results.
CL A
A
Section A-A
6.5 m

E = 205x106 kN/m2 W = 69 kN/m fy = 275 MPa
v = 0.3 P = 136 kN
G = 78846154 kN/M2

EXAMPLE BS 5950-2000 ST-FR-001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
¾ RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are taken from Example 2 on page 5 of the SCI Publication
P326, Steelwork Design Guide to BS5950-1:2000 Volume 2: Worked Examples
by M.D. Heywood & J.B. Lim.
Percent
Design Shear (kN) 292.3 292 -0.10%
Moment Capacity (kN-m) 649.0 649 0%
Shear Capacity (kN) 888.4 888 -0.05%
CONCLUSION
results.
EXAMPLE BS 5950-2000 ST-FR-001 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0

FRAME – DESIGN OF TUBULAR COLUMN FOR BIAXIAL LOADING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
In this example a continuous column is subjected factored loads and moments

N= 640 kN; Mx= 10.5 kN-m; My= 0.66 kN-m. The moment on the column is
caused by eccentric beam connections. This example was tested using the BS
5950-2000 steel frame design code. The design capacities are compared with

640 kN
Mx= 10.5 kN-m

My= 0.66 kN-m
A A
5m
Section A-A

E = 205x106 kN/m2 N = 650 kN fy = 355 MPa
v = 0.3 Mx = 10.5 kN-m
G = 78846154 kN/m2 My = 0.66 kN-m

¾ Steel column capacity
EXAMPLE BS 5950-2000 ST-FR-002 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are taken from Example 15 on page 83 of the SCI
Publication P326, Steelwork Design Guide to BS5950-1:2000 Volume 2:
Worked Examples by M.D. Heywood & J.B. Lim.
Percent
Optimized Section RHS150x150x6.3 RHS150x150x6.3 0%
Axial Capacity (kN) 773.2 773 -0.03%
Bending Capacity 68.3 68.2 -0.15%

(kN-m)
CONCLUSION
results.
EXAMPLE BS 5950-2000 ST-FR-002 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE EC 3-1993 ST-FR-001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
length and is subjected to a uniform factored load of 65.25 kN/m and a factored
point load at midspan of 129 kN. This example was tested using the EC 3-1993
steel frame design code. The moment and shear strengths are compared with
CL A
A
Section A-A
6.5 m

E = 205x106 kN/m2 W = 65.25 kN/m fy = 275 MPa
v = 0.3 P = 129 kN
G = 78846154 kN/m2

EXAMPLE EC 3-1993 ST-FR-001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
P158, Section Properties and Member Resistances to Eurocode 3 and from a
hand calculation for the shear capacity.
Percent
Design Shear (kN) 276.6 277 0.14%
Moment Capacity (kN-m) 618.1 618 -0.02%
Shear Capacity (kN) 814.2 814.1 -0.01%
COMPUTER FILE: EC 3-1993 ST-FR-001
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE EC 3-1993 ST-FR-002

FRAME – DESIGN OF TUBULAR COLUMN FOR AXIAL LOADING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
In this example a pinned column is subjected to a factored axial load N= 2500

kN. The moment capacity of the section is also compared. This example was
tested using the EC 3-1993 steel frame design code. The design capacities are
compared with independent hand calculated results.

2500 kN
A A
6m
Section A-A

E = 205x106 kN/m2 N = 2500 kN fy = 275 MPa
v = 0.3
G = 78846154 kN/m2

¾ Steel column axial and moment capacity

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
P158, Section Properties and Member Resistances to Eurocode 3 and from the
capacity tables in this document.
Percent
Optimized Section SHS300x300x10 SHS300x300x10 0%
Buckling Capacity (kN) 2689.1 2710 0.78%
Bending Capacity (kN-m) 326.7 328 0.40%
COMPUTER FILE: EC 3-1993 ST-FR-002
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE AISI-ASD-96 CF-FR-001

FRAME – HAT SECTION – BENDING AND COMPRESSION - ASD
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial and flexural strength is tested in this example.
In this example, a cold-formed hat section is subjected to factored loads and

moments wD = .9 k/ft and wL = .43 k/ft. The design capacity ratio is compared
with independent calculated results for ASD. Axial loads are applied at the ends
of the beam. (PD = 2k and PL = 6k).
P P
y
Section A-A
Material Properties Section Properties Design Properties

E = 29500 k/in2 Section 3HU4.5x135 Fy = 55 k/in2
v = 0.3
G = 11346 k/in2

¾ Axial and Flexural Strength
¾ Combined Compression and Bending Design
EXAMPLE AISI-ASD-96 CF-FR-001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are calculated as described in Example III-7 on page III-49 in
Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual-1996 Edition, American Iron and Steel
Institute.
Percent
Output Parameter ETABS Independent Difference
Axial Strength(Pu) 12.0 12.0 0%
Flexural Strength(Mny) 28.1 28.1 0%
Demand Capacity Ratio, .966 .968 .1%

D/C
COMPUTER FILE: AISI-ASD-96 CF-FR-001
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE AISI-ASD-96 CF-FR-002

FRAME – BRACED C-SECTION WITH LIPS- BENDING AND COMPRESSION- ASD
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial and flexural strength is tested in this example. In this
example, a cold-formed C-section column is subjected to factored loads P1 and
P2. (P1D = .5k and P1 L= 2.0k. P2D= .1k and P2L= .5k.) The design capacity ratio
is compared with independent calculated results for ASD. Axial loads (P1) are
applied at the ends of the column. Lateral loads (P2) are applied at the mid-height
location. See Figure below.

P1
y
3.0 in.
0.50 in.
120 in.
240 in.
9.0 in.
P2 x
120 in.
t = 0.060 in.
P1 Section A-A

E = 29500 k/in2 Section – 9CS3X060 Fy = 55 k/in2
v = 0.3
G = 11346 k/in2


REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Institute.
Percent
Axial Strength (Pu) 2.5 2.5 0%
Flexural Strength (Mu) 36.0 36.0 0%
Demand Capacity Ratio, .934 .934 0%

D/C
COMPUTER FILE: AISI-ASD-96 CF-FR-002
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE AISI-LRFD CF-FR-001

FRAME – HAT SECTION – BENDING AND COMPRESSION - LRFD
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial and flexural strength is tested in this example.
In this example, a cold formed hat section is subjected factored loads and
moments wD= .9 k/ft and wL= .43 k/ft. The design capacity ratio is compared
with independent calculated results. Axial loads are applied at the ends of the
beam. (PD= 2k and PL=6k).

x
y
P P
Section A-A

E = 29500 k/in2 Section – 3HU4.5x135 Fy = 55 k/in2
v = 0.3
g = 11346 k/in2

RESULTS COMPARISON
Institute.
EXAMPLE AISI-LRFD CF-FR-001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
Percent
Axial Strength(Pu) 18.4 18.4 0%
Flexural Strength(Mny) 43.0 43.0 0%
Demand Capacity Ratio, .928 .927 .1%

D/C
COMPUTER FILE: AISI-LRFD-96 CF-FR-001
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE AISI-LRFD CF-FR-002

FRAME – BRACED C-SECTION WITH LIPS- BENDING AND COMPRESSION - LRFD
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial and flexural strength is tested in this example. In this
example, a cold-formed C-section column is subjected to factored loads P1 and
P2. (P1D = .5k and P1L= 2.0k. P2D = .1k and P2L= .5k.) The design capacity ratio
is compared with independent calculated results for ASD. Axial loads (P1) are
applied at the ends of the column. Lateral loads (P2) are applied at the mid-height
location. See Figure below.

P1 y
3.0 in.
0.50 in.
120 in.
240 in.
P2
9.0 in.
x
120 in.
t = 0.060 in.
Section A-A
P1

E = 29500 k/in2 Section – 9CS3X060 Fy = 55 k/in2
v = 0.3
G = 11346 k/in2


REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Institute.
Percent
Axial Strength (Pu) 3.8 3.8 0%
Flexural Strength (Mu) 55.2 55.2 0%
Combined Compression .900 .901 0%

and Bending Design Ratio
(Muy)
COMPUTER FILE: AISI-LRFD CF-FR-002
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE AA-ASD-00 AL-FR-001

FRAME – DESIGN OF A SIMPLY SUPPORTED I-BEAM - ASD
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object deflection and flexural strength is tested in this example.
In this example, an aluminum I-section is subjected to a uniform load of 1 k/ft.

The maximum bending moment is compared with independent calculated results
for ASD.
L = 18 ft

E = 10100 k/in2 Section – I10X8.65 Fb = 21 k/in2
v = 0.33
Alloy-6061-T6

¾ Deflection, Compressive Stress and Flexural Strength
EXAMPLE AA-ASD-00 AL-FR-001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are calculated as described in Example 21 on page VIII-41 in
Aluminum Design Manual- 2000 Edition, The Aluminum Association.
Percent
Maximum Bending (M) 484 486 .4%
Maximum Deflection (ΔD) 1.74 1.79 0%
Compressive Stress (Fb) 21.1 20.8 1.4%
COMPUTER FILE: AA-ASD-00 AL-FR-001
CONCLUSION
results.

REVISION NO.: 0

FRAME – DESIGN OF A ROUND TUBULAR COLUMN TO SUPPORT AND AXIAL COMPRESSION
LOAD - ASD
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object compressive stress is tested in this example.
In this example, a 6-inch-diameter aluminum tube section is subjected an axial

load of 40k. The maximum compressive stress is compared with independent
calculated results for ASD.

P = 40 kips
A A
18’
Section A-A

E = 10100 k/in2 Section – 6" Tube Fb = 21 k/in2
v = 0.33 A = 3.43 in2
Alloy-6061-T6 I = 14.50 in4

¾ Demand Capacity Ratio, D/C

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Demand Capacity Ratio, 0.614 0.605 1.50%

D/C
COMPUTER FILE: AA-ASD-00AL-FR-002
CONCLUSION
results.
Computer File: AA-ASD-00AL-FR-002 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE AA-LRFD-00 AL-FR-001

FRAME – DESIGN OF A SIMPLY SUPPORTED I-BEAM - ASD
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object deflection and flexural strength is tested in this example.
In this example, an aluminum I-section is subjected a uniform load of 1 k/ft. The

maximum bending moment is compared with independent calculated results for
ASD.
L = 18 ft

E = 10100 k/in2 Section I10X8.65 Fb = 21 i/in2
v = 033
Alloy-6061-T6

¾ Deflection, Compressive Stress and Flexural Strength
EXAMPLE AA-LRFD-00 AL-FR-001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Maximum Bending (M) 484 486 0.4%
Maximum Deflection (ΔD) 1.74 1.79 0.0%
Compressive Stress (Fb) 33.2 33.5 0.89%
COMPUTER FILE: AA-LRFD-00 AL-FR-001
CONCLUSION
results.
EXAMPLE AA-LRFD-00 AL-FR-001 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0

FRAME – DESIGN OF A ROUND TUBULAR COLUMN TO SUPPORT AN AXIAL COMPRESSION
LOAD - ASD
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object compressive stress is tested in this example.
In this example, a 6-inch-diameter aluminum tube section is subjected an axial

load of 40k. The maximum compressive stress is compared with independent
calculated results for ASD.

P = 40 kips
A A
18’
Section A-A

E = 10100 k/in2 Section – 6" Tube Fb = 21 k/in2
v = 0.33 A = 3.43 in2
Alloy-6061-T6 I = 14.50 in4

¾ Demand/Capacity Ratio, D/C

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Demand/Capacity Ratio, 0.614 0.605 1.50%

D/C
COMPUTER FILE: AA-LRFD AL-FR-002
CONCLUSION
results.
Computer File: EXAMPLE 2 AA-LRFD AL-FR-002 - 2

Design Verification

Încărcat de

Informații document

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

Design Verification

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SAP2000 Software Verification

Computers & Structures, Inc.

Copyright © Computers and Structures, Inc., 1978-2008

Further information and copies of this documentation may be obtained from:

Computers and Structures, Inc.

Phone: (510) 649-2200

CONSIDERABLE TIME, EFFORT AND EXPENSE HAVE GONE INTO THE

THE USER MUST EXPLICITLY UNDERSTAND THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE

Matrix of Program Features Covered in Example Problems

Hong Kong CP-04

Italian UNI 10011

A comprehensive series of test problems, or examples, designed to test the various

¾ Unacceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-93 ST-FR-001

FRAME – SIMPLY SUPPORTED STEEL BEAM

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties Loading Geometry

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-93 ST-FR-001 - 1

φb M n ( Lb =5ft) k-ft 398.353 k-ft 398 k-ft 0.09%

φb M n ( Lb =13.33t) k-ft 305.300 k-ft 306 k-ft 0.23%

φb M n ( Lb =40ft) k-ft 69.533 k-ft 70.2 k-ft 0.96%

COMPUTER FILE: AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-001

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-93 ST-FR-001 - 2

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-93 ST-FR-002

COLUMN- SIMPLY SUPPORTED

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties Loading Geometry

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-93 ST-FR-002 - 1

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

¾ LRFD Specification Equation H1-1a

D/C ratio 0.974 0.973 0.10%

φc Pn k 1937.844 1940 0.11%

φb M nx k-ft 1200 1200 0.00%

φb M ny k-ft 600.478 611 1.72%

COMPUTER FILE: AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-002

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-93 ST-FR-002 - 2

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-001

FRAME – SIMPLY SUPPORTED STEEL BEAM

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties Loading Geometry

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-001 - 1

φb M n ( Lb =5ft) k-ft 398.353 k-ft 398 k-ft 0.09%

φb M n ( Lb =13.33t) k-ft 305.300 k-ft 306 k-ft 0.23%

φb M n ( Lb =40ft) k-ft 69.533 k-ft 70.2 k-ft 0.96%

COMPUTER FILE: AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-001

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-001 - 2

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-002

COLUMN- SIMPLY SUPPORTED

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Member Properties Loading Geometry

TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

¾ LRFD Specification Equation H1-1a

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-002 - 1

D/C ratio 0.974 0.973 0.10%

φc Pn k 1937.844 1940 0.11%

φb M nx k-ft 1200 1200 0.00%

φb M ny k-ft 600.478 611 1.72%

COMPUTER FILE: AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-002

EXAMPLE AISC LRFD-99 ST-FR-002 - 2

EXAMPLE AISC ASD-89 ST-FR-001

MOMENT FRAME – (SIDESWAY UNINHIBITED)

GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING