EIJCSE5002

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 5, No 1, 2014
Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0
Research article
ISSN 0976 4399
Column slenderness computation and evaluation using finite element

method and commercial software
Mohammad I. Hossain1, Tahsin R. Hossain2
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering and Construction, Bradley
University, Peoria, Illinois, USA.
2- Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
mihossain@fsmail.bradley.edu
doi: 10.6088/ijcser.2014050002
ABSTRACT
In this study slender column was analyzed and evaluated using the Finite Element Method
(FEM) modeling software ETABS and well-known commercial software PCACOL. First the
slender column design methods described in ACI code were reviewed manually for one
structural model. Then a manual calculation of the slender column design procedure was
checked with ETABS. The ETABS result output was also verified with PCACOL. It was
observed that ETABS was more conservative than PCACOL for determining Non-sway
Moment Magnification Factor (ns). However, PCACOL was more conservative than ETABS
for determining Sway Moment Magnification Factor (s) value. Considering the non-sway
column, the steel ratio is 9.22% greater in ETABS design output than PCACOL design
output. PCACOL and ETABS used two different approaches to calculate ns as described or
required by code. On the other hand, considering sway column, the steel ratio found in
PCACOL was 79.60% higher than ETABS. ETABS performed P- analysis approach but
PCACOL used a code specified approach to calculate s. Considering the different
approaches followed by different structural analysis and design software, a designer should
take care when using either software.
Keyword: Finite element method, PCACOL, slenderness, sway, non-sway.
1. Introduction
In order to accommodate a burgeoning population, scarcity of undeveloped land and an
excessive increase in the cost of property in Bangladesh, it has now become essential to
vertically extend buildings. For the above reasons many high-rise buildings are being
constructed in major cities. In addition, the use of high strength materials and innovative
design approaches made possible by design software has made it possible to configure
smaller cross sections of structural members than has previously been possible. The most
significant problems in the vertically extending building is the reduction of column section
and increase the length of column without proper care of slenderness effect. This could make
severe design fault (Hossain, 2008).
Slender columns are those members whose ultimate load capacities are affected by the
slenderness effect which produces additional bending stresses and/or instability of columns.
A slender column has less strength than a short column of the same sectional area; hence it
cannot withstand a heavier load as compared to a short column (Kumar, 2005). The
slenderness increases greatly with increasing length when buckling under a gravity load
Received on June, 2014 Published on August 2014
15
Column slenderness computation and evaluation using finite element method and commercial software
Mohammad I. Hossain, Tahsin R. Hossain
(Halder, 2007). Therefore, evaluation of a slender column involves consideration of the

column length in addition to its cross section.
Slender columns, when subjected to eccentric loading, show deflections. These deflections
produce additional flexural stresses due to the increase in eccentricity by the amount of
transverse deflection (). This is known as the P- effect or "secondary moment". This
secondary moment reduces the axial load capacity of slender column (Nilson et al., 2003). If
the total moment, including the secondary moment, reaches the ultimate capacity of a section,
the column fails owing to material failure. The parameters like column buckling effect,
elastic shortening and secondary moment due to lateral deflection, which are not as important
to the design of short column, must be considered for designing slender columns (Hassoun,
2005).
If the column is very slender, it becomes unstable prior to reaching material failure. In this
case instability failure occurs. Slenderness effects are more pronounced in columns of
unbraced frames. Frames that do not have adequate bracing against lateral loads show
excessive sway which jeopardizes the stability of columns. Adequate bracing in frames helps
to stabilize secondary deformations at column ends and produces more stable columns.
Because of the difference in behavior between a braced and an unbraced frame, columns are
treated differently depending on the bracing conditions of their frames.
2. Objectives and methodology
The objectives of this research work are to verify the slender column design procedure of
ETABS and other available software as per provision of ACI code (318-99) and identify the
limitations of the software specifically for slender column design. This study will help design
engineers to execute accurate slender column design calculations and improve the use of
structural analysis and design software.
The design procedure of slender column has been described in section 10.0 of ACI code. The
guidelines and methods for slender column design procedure provided in ACI Code is studied
while preforming this research. Considering all possible loads (Wind, Earthquake etc.) one
typical model of a high-rise building is developed by ETABS (Computers & Structures,
2003). ETABS is a Finite Element Method (FEM) modeling software that is being
extensively used by engineers in the design of office buildings in Bangladesh. The design
output of the ETABS is also checked by another available software PCACOL, which is
capable of designing columns. Furthermore, the parameters of slender column calculation are
checked manually with the help of PCACOL (Portland Cement Association, 1999). There are
some exceptions in design procedure of ETABS and PCACOL in using equations for
calculating some parameters. Those exceptions identify and check the variations.
It should be noted that ACI code 318-99 was used to perform the study. The reason for using
an old version of code is that the Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC, 2006) was
developed by following the old version of ACI code. BNBC revision is currently in the
process of adopting and addressing the new ACI code. However, use of factors to magnify
load magnitudes is still being used by the current and updated ACI code 318-11 in the
Appendix sections. Moreover, the basic slender column design procedure has not been
changed in the current edition of ACI code.
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 1 2014
16
ETABS is a sophisticated, yet easy to use, special purpose analysis and design program
developed specifically for building systems. ETABS Version 8.4.6 features an intuitive and
powerful graphical interface coupled with unmatched modeling, analytical, and design
procedures, all integrated using a common database. Although quick and easy for simple
structures, ETABS can also handle the largest and most complex building models, including
a wide range of nonlinear behaviors, making it the tool of choice for structural engineers in
the building industry.
PCACOL is column design software developed by Portland Cement Association. This
software can analyze and design both sway and non-sway columns. The design procedure is
similar to ETABS with some exceptions.
3. Mathematical review
It is very important to understand the design steps, calculation procedures and idealness of
software by which the study was done. By understanding the steps of software it will be
easier for the designer to find out which steps are important and may need more attention at
the time of design. The design information of the structural model has been divided into three
different categories: basic information, loading information, and load combination used to
analyze the design. All the categories are briefly described in the following paragraphs.
3.1 Basic information
The building model that was prepared by ETABS for the mathematical review study is square
and ten stories high. There are three panels in each direction each are 20'-0" (6096.0 mm)
apart. The structure has modeled as beam-column frame type with shear walls in the middle
position of the building. So, according to BNBC the structure can be classified as dual
system; more specifically, a concrete with concrete IMRF (Intermediate Moment Resisting
Frame) building. The shear wall acts as a bracing of the building frame and reduces the sway
of the building frame. The thickness of the shear wall is 9" (229.6 mm). The position of the
stairwell is around the outside of the shear wall and connects with the shear walls and slab.
The foundation is specified as fixed type and the foundation is shallow foundation. The
height of the basement column is 5'-0" (1524 mm). The ground floor height is 17'-6" (5334.0
mm) and the other floor height is 12'-0" (3657.6 mm). The beams, other than grade beams,
are 18" x 12" (457.2 mm x 304.8 mm) depth.
The rectangular grade beams are 20" x 12" (505.0 mm x 304.8 mm) deep. The grade beam
connects column to column and grade beam to share wall in order to transfer the ground shear
force effectively. The clear cover of grade beam is specified as 2.5" (63.5 mm) whereas the
regular beam clear cover is 1.5" (38.1 mm). The slab is monolithic with beams and 6" thick
(152.4 mm). The dimensions of the various columns are: corner columns 14" x 14" (355.6
mm x 355.6 mm), edge columns 16" x 16" (406.4 mm x 406.4 mm) and inner columns 18" x
18" (457.2 mm x 457.2 mm). So, all the columns are square. The clear cover of the concrete
column is 1.5" (38.1 mm). The compressive strength of concrete is 4.0 ksi (27.6 MPa),
strength of steel is 60.0 ksi (413.7 MPa) and modulus of steel is 29,000.0 ksi (200.0E3 MPa).
According to BNBC the site soil characteristics are considered as S3. The building is situated
in Dhaka city and it is a commercial building. The design parameters were chosen according
to those suitable for commercial buildings standing in Dhaka. As it is a commercial building,
BNBC classified it as a standard occupancy structure and ranked the structural importance
category as IV.
17
3.2 Loading information

Normally in Dhaka city a building experiences two types of loads. One is gravity load, the
other is environmental load. Gravity loads come from self-weight of the building and
imposed vertical loads on the building. In Bangladesh only wind load and earthquake load are
taken as environmental loads. The combined presence of wind load and earthquake load is
unlikely. A minimum amount of wind load is always present on a structure which turns peak
value at the time of storm. Although the presence of earthquake load is only occasional, when
it occurs it is the t most devastating.
The dead load calculated from the slab is 75 psf (3.6E-3 MPa). Dead load imposed through
floor finish is 20 psf (9.6E-4 MPa) and dead load coming from partition and boundary walls
has assumed as much as 30 psf (1.4E-3 MPa). As the building is considered a commercial
building the loads from false ceilings and other service facilities are consider as 10 psf (4.8E4 MPa). So, total dead load imposed on the structure is 60 psf (2.8E-3 MPa). Some designer
may consider the partition wall load as live load for a commercial building because the
partition wall can be rearranged depending on occupancy. In this model for simplification the
partition wall load is considered as dead load. The live load coming to the building is
considered as 60 psf (2.8E-3 MPa). According to BNBC, for a residential building the live
load is fixed as 40 psf (1.9E-3 MPa). For other public buildings the live load varies from 75
to 150 psf (3.6E-3 to 7.2E-3 MPa). From a practical point of view the live load is consider
more than residential but lower that intense public gathering places.
From the BNBC table titled Basic wind speeds for selected locations in Bangladesh the
Basic Wind Speed (Vb) is selected 130.5 mph (210 km/hr). The exposure type is selected as
Exposure A because the building is sited in an urban area. The windward coefficient is
calculated as 1.4 from the BNBC article titled Overall pressure coefficient (Cp) for
rectangular building with flat roofs. Because the structure is ranked as standard occupancy
structure, the corresponding value of Structural Importance Coefficient (CI) equals to 1.00.
The wind load is acting on four faces of the building.
From a Seismic Zone Map of Bangladesh, the Seismic Zone Coefficient (Z) is taken as 0.15
corresponding seismic zone 2. The Response Modification Coefficient for Structural Systems
(R) is taken as 9 for both directions of the building. Structural Importance Coefficient is taken
as 1.00 for earthquake analysis which is same as wind load analysis. The earthquake force is
acting from both directions of the building which has considered for more practical
consideration. The Structural Period is intended from Method A that is described in BNBC.
3.3 Load cases
In the model static load cases like dead load (DL), live load (LL), wind load X direction
(WLx), wind load Y direction (WLy), earthquake load X direction (EQx), earthquake load Y
direction (EQy) are used. For applying wind load and earthquake load the automation feature
of software has been used. Wind and earthquake loads are applied perpendicular to the
building axis. For simplicity, no eccentric loads have been applied to the model.
4. FEM models
This FEM model has been developed using ETABS. There are six grids in each direction,
four of them are primary grids and two of them are secondary grid. The primary grids are 20'International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
18
0" (6096.0 mm) apart which produces 60'-0" (18288.0 mm) frame size. The grid spacing is
the same in two directions. After defining the grid data, custom story data are defined. First
only two stories are defined. The first story (story-1) is ground floor with grade beams only
and the second story (story 1-1) is the floor with beams. The ground floor story is 17'-6"
(5334.0 mm) high and the other story is 12'-0" (3657.6 mm) high.
C4
(a) Plan
C5
(b) Elevation
Figure 1: Plan and Elevation of FEM model (Dimension in feet)

After defining the first two stories, the next step is to define the beam and column dimension
as well as define member parameters. The columns, beams and shear walls are drawn along
the layout plan. After drawing the beams, columns and shear walls, the plan view of story 1-1
looks like Figure 1(a). The floor slabs are drawn by connecting column to column. The floor
slabs and shear walls are generated by using an auto mesh feature of software. 4 'x 4' (1219.2
mm x 1219.2 mm) meshing is used up to the beam line. The slab has been modeled as a shell
member. The stair model is simplified and modeled as a slab connecting to the share wall and
surround beams. The supports are assigned as fixed type support. All the slabs are assigned
for diaphragm action to minimize relative displacement. After completing the second floor
slab the model is extended up to ten stories by inserting a new story. The other nine stories
duplicate the property of story-1-1. Because each story reproduces the properties of story 1-1,
they are designated story 1-2, story 1-3, and so on.
The special seismic data has been omitted and mass source only from load has been selected
in ETABS because the building has been designed as sway intermediate moment resisting
frame. The self-weight of building is automatically calculated and incorporated by the
software. The environmental load data inputs in the model by using code Uniform Building
Code (UBC, 1994). There are some differences in code UBC and BNBC. For example the
exposure type of building in ETABS is B, but according to BNBC it is A. For X-direction
19
wind load the wind direction angle is 0 (zero) degree. Windward coefficient has been
calculated from BNBC and obtains 1.4. Leeward coefficient is negligible and just input for
software needful. The exposure height is considered from story-1 to story-1-10. Since the
story under grade beam is below soil level it is not influenced by wind load. The structural
importance factor is taken from BNBC specification and for this building it is 1.00. Same
data table is prepared for Y-direction wind load except the wind direction angle assigned is
90 degrees. UBC seismic loading parameters are assigned for earthquake load data input. The
seismic load parameters can be defined as BNBC. There is an option for assigning the
direction of eccentricity.
Two data tables are created, one for X-direction earthquake load and other for Y-direction
earthquake load. For time period calculation, the value calculated from Method-1 is from
BNBC. Here the noticeable detail is that the Ct value input is measured in ft. whereas in
BNBC the value comes in terms of meters. Taking into account the base shear force acts on
foundation level the story ranges are from base to story-1-10. The numerical coefficient (Rw)
is taken as 9.0 because the building is considered as dual system with concrete IMRF. The
seismic zone factor is user defined and soil coefficient is matched with BNBC value. The
important factor is classified from BNBC specification. Floor load has been provided for
homogeneous behavior of all members of the structure. All the members (i.e. beams and
column etc.) have been satisfied for their maximum allowable loads for most critical
condition. The columns that are checked by calculation are marked on Figure 1(b). C4, a
corner column, and C5, an edge column, are selected for calculations and verifications.
5. Results and discussions
5.1 Calculation check manually for ns
When the slenderness of column predominantly depends on gravity load effect it is known as
Non-sway Moment Magnification Factor, ns. The increase of dead and live load is directly
influenced in this type of slenderness behavior. This step involves checking one column, i.e.
edge column (C5) of periphery frame. In edge column the value of magnification factor is
different for two axes of column. The basic moment and load data have been achieved from
ETABS software calculation. C5 column is checked for design load combination
1.4DL+1.7LL. ns predominantly depends on dead load, live load, and the combined load of
the two.
The major and minor moment of edge column is not the same for dead and live load because
of the position of the column and non-symmetric biaxial moment distribution. The non-sway
values have been checked top of the column location. The column height is 17'-6" (5334.0
mm) and the clear height of the column measures from bottom face of beam in story-1-1 to
top face of grade beam in story-1. In calculation of slenderness ETABS considers Effective
Length Factor (k) as 1.0 for non-sway frame. The k factor noticeably changed for sway frame,
i.e. steel building. By considering k equals to 1.0, ETABS basically designs concrete
buildings in a very conservatively.. The actual value is usually less than 1.0. For analysis of
slenderness the k factor is always considered as 1.0 to take the advantage of automatic design
phenomena even though the value could be overwritten at any time after the analysis and
design for a particular column.
To determine the ns value for C5 column the geometric and load data information has been
directly recorded from ETABS: column dimension = 16" x 16" (406.4 mm x 406.4 mm),
20
beam dimension = 18" x 12" (457.2 mm x 304.8 mm), and design load, Pu = 684.785 kip
(3.0E6). At station location 16'-0" (4876.8 mm) and for load combinations the major and
minor axis moments are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Service loads and moments for column C5
Load
type
Dead
Live
Major axis
moment, M3
kip-ft (N-mm)
-1.171 (-1.6E6)
-0.428 (-0.6E6)
Minor axis
moment, M2
kip-ft (N-mm)
17.330 (23.5E6)
6.914 (9.4E6)
Member load
kip (N)
-350.63 (-15.6E6)
-114.06 (-0.5E6)
M3ns = 1.4 ( 1.171) + 1.7 ( 0.428) = 2.367 kip - ft.

M2ns = 1.4 (17.330) + 1.7 (6.914) = 36.016 kip - ft
Minimum moment = Pu (0.6 + 0.03 h ) = (684.785 (0.6 + 0.03 16)) 12
= 61.631 kip-ft.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Here h is the minimum dimension of column. As the column is square in shape the minimum
moment is same for major and minor axis. As minimum moment is larger than the actual
acting moment, therefore minimum moment governs for both axes. For column design, major
axis moment is considered. When the minimum moment governs, ETABS shows the major
axis moment (M3) equals the minimum moment, but minor axis moment (M2) remains
unchanged. The primary moment at the top and bottom location of member is illustrated in
Table 2. The subsequent calculation depends on these moments.
Table 2: Location wise (top & bottom) moment in C5 column
Type of moment
Major axis moment, M3, kipft (N-mm)
Minor axis moment, M2, kipft (N-mm)
Location of moment
At height 0.0 ft.
At height 16.0 ft.
-2.370 (-3.2E6)
0.830 (1.1E6)
-18.210 (-24.7E6)
36.020 (48.8E6)
Moment correction factor,

M1
0.830
Cm (3) = 0.6 + 0.4
0.4 = 0.6 + 0.4
= 0.460 > 0.400 = 0.460
M2
2.370
M1
18.210
Cm (2) = 0.6 + 0.4
0.4 = 0.6 + 0.4
= 0.398 < 0.400 = .0400
M2
36.020
Stiffness reduction factor,
(1.4 dead load )
(1.4 350.63)
d =
=
= 0.717
(1.4 dead load + 1.7 live load ) (1.4 -350.63 + 1.7 -114.06)
Flexural stiffness of compression member,
16 16 3
0.4 3.6 10 6
12
0.4 EcIg
EI =
=
= 4.580 10 9 in2-lb
1 + d
(1 + 0.717)
Critical buckling load,

(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
21
2 4.580 10 9
1000 = 1226.20 kip

=
(kl )2 (1 16 12)2
Non-sway Moment Magnification Factors,
Cm
0.460
= 1.801
ns (3) =
=
Pu
684.785
1
1
0.75Pc 0.75 1226.20

0.400
= 1.566
ns (2) =
684.785
0.75 1226.20
Design moment, M3 = 1.801 61.631 = 110.997 kip - ft
Design moment, M2 = 1.566 36.016 = 56.401 kip - ft
The calculated values matched with result outputs of ETABS model.
Pc =
2 EI
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
5.2 Calculation check by PCACOL for ns

The steps to calculate column forces and other parameters by PCACOL are provided below.
Step-1: provide general information: the data that is required by this step is primary unit,
design code, option for slenderness and design moment application (i.e. biaxial or uniaxial).
In Step-2: material properties: concrete strength, steel strength and basic properties of
concrete have to provide in this step. Only concrete strength and steel strength is required the
other value i.e. elasticity, beta, ultimate strength automatically calculated by the software. In
step-3: sectional properties: width and length of column are the input parameters. Because the
column is uniform in length no increment value is needed. In step-4: reinforcement
information:
The limit of minimum and maximum size of reinforcement and number of bars which should
be checked by the software has to be provided in this step. Additional information such as
clear cover, layout of column reinforcement has to be provided. The minimum and maximum
bar No. and size cant be equal. If any invalid data is given, a warning is indicated. In step-5:
slenderness option input: since consideration of slenderness has been checked in step 1,, the
slenderness parameters have to be provided in this step. The structure is modeled as braced
against sideway and the k factor provided is 1.0 because ETABS consider k factor as 1.0 in
case of sway intermediate frame. In step-6: basis loads and moments input: the column is
checked for non-sway conditions so, the dead load and live load parameter is essential. These
basic loads are imported from ETABS calculation. For inputting the moment data, one factor
should be noticed - all the data are positive value because the deflection shape is double
curvature and creates positive moment at the end of the column. This data input has been
recommended by PCACOL guideline. The moment data presentation is different for ETABS
and PCACOL software. In step-7: load combination: only factored dead load and live load
combination are used for calculation in the selected column analysis for not-sway moment.
No lateral load is considered. The default option of other lateral load combination is deleted
because of the simplicity of analysis.
The parameters calculated by PCACOL for ns for two axes are presented in Table 3. It is
notable that the value of Pc for X and Y axis, ns for X axis and ns for Y axis differs from the
calculation that is achieved from ETABS calculation output. This is the result of using one
formula of EI that is differing from ETABS.

22
Table 3: Parameters for ns factors by calculating PCACOL

Parameters
Cm for X-axis
Cm for Y-axis
d for X and Y axis
Pc for X and Y axis
ns for X axis
ns for Y axis
Value
0.400
0.460
0.717
1569 kip
1.000
1.101
The equation of EI that is used by PCACOL is:

0.2 EcIg + EsIse
EI =
1 + d
(13)
Flexural stiffness of compression member,
16 16 3
0.2 3605
+ 29000 8 0.79 5.625 2 + 29000 4 0.79 1.875 2
12
EI =
1 + 0.717
1.0059 10 7
So, EI =
= 5.858 10 6 in2-kip
1.717
Critical buckling load,
2 EI 2 5.858 10 6
= 1568.36 kip
Pc =
=
(kl )2 (1 16 12)2
Non-sway Moment Magnification Factors,
0.460
Cm
= 1.101
ns (Y) =
=
Pu
684.80
1
1
0.75Pc 0.75 1568.36

Cm
0.400
= 0.957 < 1.000 = 1.000
ns (X) =
=
Pu
684.80
1
1
0.75Pc 0.75 1568.36

The values matched with PCACOL result outputs those are shown in Table 3.
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
5.3 Result variation of ETABS & PCACOL for ns

As ETABS and PCACOL use different formulas for calculating ns there are some differences
in output values. These variations are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Comparison between results of ETABS and PCACOL for ns calculation

Parameters
EI (in2-kip)
Pc (kip)
ns(Y or 3)
ns(X or 2)
% of steel
ETABS value
4.580 10 6
1226.20
1.801
1.566
4.079
PCACOL value
5.858 10 6
1568.36
1.101
1.000
3.703

% difference
(+) 27.9%
(+) 27.9%
(-) 38.87%
(-) 36.14%
(-) 9.22%
23
From this table it is clear that ETABS design structure is very conservative. According to
Nilson et. al (2003), for lightly reinforced member the use of Eq. (7) is more conservative but
for highly reinforced members it is greatly underestimated. Eq. (13) is more reliable for the
entire range of (i.e. steel ratio) and definitely for medium and higher value. There is no
option for changing equation in ETABS and PCACOL. Even the value of EI and Pc cannot be
overwritten by ETABS. Therefore this phenomenon is very important to design by ETABS
and PCACOL.
5.4 Calculation check manually for s

This step involves checking of one column, i.e. corner column (C4) of periphery frame.
Corner column is selected because of the lateral load influences on design of this column.
The basic moment and load data has been calculated from ETABS software. It should be
noted that there is no prescribed equation for determining s in ETABS design manual. The
designer has to run P- analysis to determine the sway moment effect on column. C4 column
is checked for design load 0.9DL-1.43EQy, which is a combination of dead load and
earthquake load. The major and minor moment of edge column is identical for dead and live
load because of the position of the column and symmetric biaxial moment distribution. The
sway values are checked on the top of the column. The column height is 17-6 (5334.0 mm)
and the clear height of the column is measured from bottom face of beam on story-1-1 to top
face of grade beam on story-1. In calculating the slenderness ETABS consider Effective
Length Factor (k) as 1.0 for sway frame. To determine the s value for corner column the
geometric and load data information has been directly recorded from ETABS: column
dimension = 14" x 14" (355.6 mm x 355.6 mm), beam dimension = 18" x 12" (457.2 mm x
304.8 mm), and design load, Pu = 684.785 kip (3.0E6 N). At station location 16'-0" (4876.8
mm) and for load the ultimate load, maximum shear force and relative story drift is presented
in Table 5.
Table 5: Parameters for designing stability index

PARAMETERS
Corner column
Edge column
Drift at bottom of column
Drift at top of column
PU, KIP (N)

V3, KIP (N)
221.25 (0.9E6) 2.41 (10.7E3)
385.63 (1.7E6) 3.74 (16.6E3)
0.045" (1.14 mm)
0.243" (6.17 mm)
To calculate the Stability Index for the periphery frame, the total ultimate load for column as
well as the maximum shear force acting on column is required. In the periphery frame there
are two corner columns and two edge columns. So,
(18)
Pu = 2 221.25 + 2 385.63 = 1213.76 kip
V = 2 2.41 + 2 3.74 = 12.3 5 kip
(19)
Stability index,
Pu 0 = (1213.76 (0.243 0.045)) = 0.093 > 0.05
Q=
(12.3 17.5 12)
V lc
So, the frame is sway frame.
(20)
Sway Moment Magnification Factor,

24
1
1
=
= 1.103
1 Q 1 0.093
Minimum moment = Pu (0.6 + 0.03 h ) = (221.25 (0.6 + 0.03 14)) 12
= 18.806 kip -ft.
s =
(21)
(22)
The minimum moment is the same for major and minor axis because of square shaped
column. As minimum moment is larger than the actual acting moment the minimum moment
governs both axes. For column design major axis moment is considered.
One special consideration has to check for s. The maximum moment may occur between the
ends of the column being designed. Ordinarily this is not the case for columns in sway frame.
For sway frames the maximum moment usually occurs at one end of the column. However,
under certain conditions this may not be the case. Hence ACI requires that one check for such
a condition.
Lu
>
r
35
Pu
f'cAg
If above equation is true then the column must be designed as a non-sway column.
Lu 16 12
35
35
=
= 45.71 and
=
= 65.88
r
0.3 14
Pu
221.25
f'cAg
So,
Lu
<
r
35
Pu
f'cAg
(23)
(24)
4 14 14
and no further magnification required.
After overwriting the value of s the design moment has changed. The model is run with P-
analysis with the moment value before overwrites with s. The load combination that is used
for P- analysis is 1.4DL+1.7LL, which has been recommended in ETABS design manual for
column. In the Table 6 a list presents the value of moments at different conditions of the
column. The moment value after the overwrite almost matched with P- analysis. As the P-
analysis moments are almost identical to the overwrite moment it could be concluded that the
using of s equation in this calculation is consistent for ETABS design calculation.
Table 6: Result comparison of different analysis mode
Before overwrite
After overwrite
After P- analysis
TYPES OF
MOMENT
M3
M2
M3
M2
M3
M2
MOMENT VALUE, KIP-FT

(N-MM)
18.807 (25.5E6)
17.474 (23.7E6)
18.807 (25.5E6)
18.464 (25.0E6)
18.963 (25.7E6)
18.144 (24.6E6)
5.5 Calculation check by PCACOL for s

25
Several inputs are required to calculate s in PCACOL. It requires the ratio of the design load
to all columns of concern frame at design story to design load of selected column and ratio of
critical buckling load to all columns of concern frame at design story to buckling load of
selected column. PCACOL cannot perform P- analysis. Consequently the P- analysis
result obtained from ETABS cannot compare with the PCACOL output. The calculation steps
are shown below.
P
P
= 2 221.25 + 2 385.63 = 1213.76 kip
(25)
1213.76
(26)
= 5.486
Pu
221.25
Flexural stiffness for corner column,
14 14 3
+ 29 10 6 6 0.44 4.75 2 = 4.03 10 9 in2-lb
EI = 0.2 3.6 10 6
(27)
12
Flexural stiffness for edge column,
16 16 3
+ 29 10 6 8 0.79 5.6252 + 29 10 5 4 0.79 1.875 2
EI = 0.2 3.6 10 6
12
) (
EI = 1.01 1010 in2-lb

Critical buckling load for corner column,
2 4.03 10 9
= 1078.95 kip
Pc =
2
(1 16 12)
Critical buckling load for edge column,
2 1.01 1010
= 2704.10 kip
Pc =
2
(1 16 12)
Pc = 2 1078.95 + 2 2704.10 = 7566.10 kip
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
7566.10
= 7.01
Pc
1078.95
The Sway Moment Magnification Factor for corner column,
1
1
s =
= 1.27
=
Pu 1 1213.76
0.75 7566.10
0.75 Pc
(32)
(33)
For corner columns the s is same for major and minor axis. There are some differences
between the calculation of s by ETABS and PCACOL. The variation in different parameters
is present in Table 6. It is evident that the difference in steel ratio in ETABS and PCACOL is
excessive even though the s value difference is moderate.
Table 6: Comparison between result of ETABS and PCACOL for s calculation

PARAMETERS
s (Y or 3) or s (X or
2)
% of steel
ETABS
VALUE
PCACOL
VALUE
%
DIFFERENCE
1.103
1.270
(+) 15.14%
1.00%
1.796%
(+) 79.60%

26
6. Conclusions
The objective of this study was to review the slender column design guideline of ACI code by
manual calculation and check the calculation process by FEM software ETABS and
commercial software PCACOL. The following conclusions are made from this study.
1. The analysis process of ETABS and PCACOL differ when calculating ns because of using
Eq. (13) in PCACOL and Eq. (7) in ETABS. The analysis value of EI and Pc has increased
about 27.9% for PCACOL output than ETABS output. As the value of Pc is larger in
PCACOL than ETABS the ns value is lower in PCACOL than ETABS. This is because Eq.
(13) considers steel effect to calculate EI value where Eq. (7) totally ignores it. The steel ratio
is greater in ETABS design output then PCACOL design output by about 9.22%. The value
of ns in major axis is 38.87% greater in ETABS analysis than PCACOL analysis. The value
of ns in minor axis is 36.14% greater in ETABS analysis than PCACOL analysis.
2. For checking the s value in both ETABS and PCACOL software, two differences are
observed. PCACOL directly uses Eq. (33) to calculate s, whereas ETABS uses P- analyses
for determining sway magnification moment. It is observed that the magnified moment
manually calculate using Eq. (21) is almost the same that is found after P- analysis using
ETABS. Because PCACOL uses Eq. (13) to calculate EI value, it gives a more conservative
result for steel ratio. The steel ratio found in PCACOL is 79.60% higher than ETABS
calculated steel ratio which is noticeable.
3. ETABS is more conservative than PCACOL for conducting ns value and PCACOL is more
conservative than ETABS for conducting s value. So, designers should take care when use
these two software for slender column design purpose.
6. References
1. ACI Committee 318, (1999), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete &
Commentary: ACI 318-99, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, USA.
2. Bangladesh National Building Code, (2006), BNBC: Housing and Building Research
Institute, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
3. Computers & Structures Inc., (2003), ETABS: Integrated Building Design Software,
Version 8.0, Berkeley, California, USA.
4. Halder, B. K., (2007), Design of Concrete Column Considering Slenderness Effect,
B.Sc. Engineering Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
5. Hassoun, M. N., (2005), Structural Concrete, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
Inc., New York, USA.
6. Hossain, M. I., (2008), Effects of Slenderness in Reinforced Concrete Column
Design, M. Engg. Research Project, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh
University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
7. Kumar, S., (2005), Treasure of RCC Design (In S.I Unit), Standard Book House, New
Delhi, India.
27
8. Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., Dolan, C. W., (2003), Design of Concrete Structures, 13th
Edition, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New Delhi, India.
9. Portland Cement Association, (1999), PCACOL: Design and Investigation of
Reinforced Concrete Column Sections, Version 3.0, Skokie, Illinois, USA.
10. Uniform Building Code, (1994), UBC: International Code Council, Inc. Falls Church,
Virginia, USA.

28

EIJCSE5002

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

EIJCSE5002

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

ISSN 0976 4399

Column slenderness computation and evaluation using finite element

Received on June, 2014 Published on August 2014

(Halder, 2007). Therefore, evaluation of a slender column involves consideration of the

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

3.2 Loading information

Figure 1: Plan and Elevation of FEM model (Dimension in feet)

M3ns = 1.4 ( 1.171) + 1.7 ( 0.428) = 2.367 kip - ft.

Moment correction factor,

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

1000 = 1226.20 kip

0.75Pc 0.75 1226.20

5.2 Calculation check by PCACOL for ns

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Table 3: Parameters for ns factors by calculating PCACOL

The equation of EI that is used by PCACOL is:

Flexural stiffness of compression member,

0.75Pc 0.75 1568.36

0.75Pc 0.75 1568.36

5.3 Result variation of ETABS & PCACOL for ns

Table 4: Comparison between results of ETABS and PCACOL for ns calculation

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

5.4 Calculation check manually for s

Table 5: Parameters for designing stability index

PU, KIP (N)

V = 2 2.41 + 2 3.74 = 12.3 5 kip

Sway Moment Magnification Factor,

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

and no further magnification required.

Table 6: Result comparison of different analysis mode

MOMENT VALUE, KIP-FT

5.5 Calculation check by PCACOL for s

= 2 221.25 + 2 385.63 = 1213.76 kip

Flexural stiffness for edge column,

EI = 1.01 1010 in2-lb

Table 6: Comparison between result of ETABS and PCACOL for s calculation

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Você também pode gostar