Analysis Verification Examples

Analysis Verification Examples
Analysis
Verification Examples
For SAP2000 and CSiBridge
ISO GEN093010M 4 Rev. 5

Proudly developed in the United States of America February 2016
Copyright
Copyright Computers and Structures, Inc., 1978-2016.

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

www.csiamerica.com
info@csiamerica.com (for general information)

support@csiamerica.com (for technical support)
DISCLAIMER
CONSIDERABLE TIME, EFFORT AND EXPENSE HAVE GONE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AND
TESTING OF THIS SOFTWARE. HOWEVER, THE USER ACCEPTS AND UNDERSTANDS THAT
NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY THE DEVELOPERS OR THE DISTRIBUTORS
ON THE ACCURACY OR THE RELIABILITY OF THIS PRODUCT.
THIS PRODUCT IS A PRACTICAL AND POWERFUL TOOL FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN.

HOWEVER, THE USER MUST EXPLICITLY UNDERSTAND THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF
THE SOFTWARE MODELING, ANALYSIS, AND DESIGN ALGORITHMS AND COMPENSATE
FOR THE ASPECTS THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED.
THE INFORMATION PRODUCED BY THE SOFTWARE MUST BE CHECKED BY A

QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER MUST
INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE RESULTS AND TAKE PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INFORMATION THAT IS USED.
Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAP2000
REVISION NO.: 14
CONTENTS
Introduction
Methodology
Acceptance Criteria
Summary of Examples
Matrix of Program Features Covered in Example Problems
Automating the SAP2000 Verification Checking Process
Analysis Examples
Frames
1-001 General Loading
1-002 Temperature Loading
1-003 Distributed and Concentrated Moments
1-004 Rotated Local Axes
1-005 Displacement Loading
1-006 Non-Prismatic Sections and Automatic Frame Subdivision
1-007 End Releases
1-008 Partial Fixity End Releases
1-009 Prestress Applied To Frame Objects
1-010 End Offsets
1-011 Insertion Point
1-012 No Tension and No Compression Frame Objects
1-013 Simply Supported Beam on Elastic Foundation
1-014 Eigenvalue Problem
1-015 Steady State Harmonic Loads
1-016 Tension Stiffening Using P-Delta Analysis
1-017 Vibration of a String Under Tension
1-018 Bending, Shear and Axial Deformations in a Rigid Frame
CONTENTS - 1
REVISION NO.: 14
1-019 Buckling of a Rigid Frame

1-020 Response Spectrum Analysis of a Two-Dimensional Rigid Frame
1-021 Bathe and Wilson Eigenvalue Problem
1-022 Two-Dimensional Moment Frame with Static and Dynamic Loads
1-023 ASME Eigenvalue Problem
1-024 Response Spectrum Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Moment Frame
1-025 Response Spectrum Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Braced Frame
1-026 Moment and Shear Hinges
1-027 Construction Sequence Loading
1-028 Large Axial Displacements
1-029 Large Bending Displacements
1-030 Moving Loads
Shells
2-001 Patch Test With Prescribed Displacements
2-002 Straight Beam with Static Loads
2-003 Curved Beam with Static Loads
2-004 Twisted Beam with Static Loads
2-005 Rectangular Plate with Static Loads
2-006 Scordelis-Lo Roof with Static Loads
2-007 Hemispherical Shell Structure with Static Loads
2-008 Cantilever Plate Eigenvalue Problem
2-009 Plate on Elastic Foundation
2-010 Cylinder with Internal Pressure
2-011 ASME Cooling Tower Problem with Static Wind Pressure
2-012 Plate Bending when Shear Deformations Are Significant
2-013 Temperature Load that Is Constant Through Shell Thickness
2-014 Temperature Gradient Through Shell Thickness
2-015 Orthotropic Plate
2-016 Out-of-Plane Buckling
2-017 In-Plane Buckling
2-018 Large Axial Displacements
2-019 Large Bending Displacements
2-020 Prestress Applied to Area Objects
CONTENTS - 2
REVISION NO.: 14
Planes
3-004 Thick-Walled Cylinder
3-005 Pore Pressure
Asolids
4-001 Soil Supporting Uniformly Loaded Circular Footing
4-003 Rotating Annular Disk
4-004 Pore Pressure
Solids
5-004 Twisted Beam with Static Loads
5-005 Rectangular Plate with Static Loads
5-006 Scordelis-Lo Roof with Static Loads
5-007 Hemispherical Dome Structure with Static Loads
5-009 Prestress Applied to Solid Objects
5-010 Buckling
5-011 Temperature Load
5-012 Plate on Elastic Foundation
5-013 Pore Pressure
CONTENTS - 3
REVISION NO.: 14
Links
6-001 Linear Link with Ramp Loading
6-002 Multi-Linear Elastic Link
6-003 Gap Element
6-004 Hook Element
6-005 Damper Element Under Harmonic Loading
6-006 SUNY Buffalo Damper with Linear Velocity Exponent
6-007 SUNY Buffalo Damper with Nonlinear Velocity Exponent
6-008 Plastic Wen Link
6-009 Plastic Kinematic Link
6-010 SUNY Buffalo Eight-Story Building with Rubber Isolators
6-011 SUNY Buffalo Seven-Story Building with Friction Pendulum Isolators
6-012 Frequency Dependent Links
Cables
7-001 Uniform and Temperature Loading
7-002 Uniform and Concentrated Loading
7-003 Prestressed Cable Net
Design Examples
Steel Frame
AISC 360-05 Ex001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
AISC 360-05 Ex002 Built Up Wide Flange Member Under Compression
AISC 360-10 Ex001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
AISC 360-10 Ex002 Build Up Wide Flange Member Under Compression
AISC ASD-89 Ex001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
AISC ASD-89 Ex002 Wide Flange Member Under Compression
AISC LRFD-93 Ex001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
Wide Flange Member Under Combined Compression &
AISD LRFD-93 Ex002
Biaxial Bending
AS 4100-1998 Ex001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression
AS 4100-1998 Ex002 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
Wide Flange Member Under Combined Compression
AS 4100-1998 Ex003
and Bending
CONTENTS - 4
REVISION NO.: 14
BS 5950-2000 Ex001 Wide Flange Section Under Bending

BS 5950-2000 Ex002 Square Tube Member Under Compression and Bending
CSA S16-09 Ex001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
CSA S16-09 Ex002 Wide Flange Member Under Compression and Bending
CSA S16-14 Ex001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
CSA S16-14 Ex002 Wide Flange Member Under Compression and Bending
EN 3-2005 Ex001
and Bending
EN 3-2005 Ex002 Wide Flange Section Under Bending
Wide Flange Section Under Combined Compression
EN 3-2005 Ex003
and Bending
IS 800-2007 Ex001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression
IS 800-2007 Ex002 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
IS 800-2007 Ex003
and Biaxial Bending
KBC 2009 Ex001 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
KBC 2009 Ex002 Built Up Wide Flange Member Under Com pression
Wide Flange Section Under Combined Compression
NTC 2008 Ex001
and Bending
NTC 2008 Ex002
and Bending
NZS 3404-1997 Ex001 Wide Flange Member Under Compression
NZS 3404-1997 Ex002 Wide Flange Member Under Bending
NZS 3404-1997 Ex003
and Bending
Concrete Frame
Shear and Flexural Reinforcement Design of a Singly
ACI 318-08 Ex001
Reinforced Rectangle
P-M Interaction Check for Compression-Controlled
ACI 318-08 Ex002
Rectangular Column
ACI 318-11 Ex001
ACI 318-11 Ex002
Rectangular Column
ACI 318-14 Ex001
CONTENTS - 5
REVISION NO.: 14

ACI 318-14 Ex002
Rectangular Column
AS 3600-2009 Ex001
Reinforced T-Beam
AS 3600-2009 Ex002
Rectangular Column
BS 8110-1997 Ex001
BS 8110-1997 Ex002
Rectangular Column
CSA A23.3-04 Ex001
CSA A23.3-04 Ex002
Rectangular Column
CSA A23.3-14 Ex001
CSA A23.3-14 Ex002
Rectangular Column
EN 2-2004 Ex001
EN 2-2004 Ex002
Rectangular Column
IS 456-2000 Ex001
IS 456-2000 Ex002
Rectangular Column
KBC 2009 Ex001
KBC 2009 Ex002
Rectangular Column
NTC 2008 Ex001
NTC 2008 Ex002
Rectangular Column
NZS 3101-2006 Ex001
NZS 3101-2006 Ex002
Rectangular Column
RCDF 2004 Ex001
CONTENTS - 6
REVISION NO.: 14

RCDF 2004 Ex002
Rectangular Column
SS CP 65-1999 Ex001
SS CP 65-1999 Ex002
Rectangular Column
TS 500-2000 Ex001
TS 500-2000 Ex002
Rectangular Column
Conclusions
Frames
Area Elements - Shells, Planes and Asolids
Solids
Links
Cables
References
CONTENTS - 7
REVISION NO.: 14
INTRODUCTION
This document provides example problems used to test various features and capabilities
of the SAP2000 and CSiBridge programs. Users should supplement these examples as
necessary for verifying their particular application of the software.
References to SAP2000 in this documentation should be interpreted as CSiBridge for

users of CSiBridge Version 15 and later. The steel frame and concrete frame design
verification examples currently only apply to SAP2000.
INTRODUCTION - 1
REVISION NO.: 14
METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive series of test problems, or examples, designed to test the various

elements, analysis features, and design algorithms of the program were created. The
results produced by SAP2000 were compared to independent sources, such as hand
calculated results, theoretical or published results, or results obtained from other
structural/finite element programs. The comparison of the SAP2000 results with results
obtained from independent sources is provided in tabular form as part of each example.
Many different equation solver options are available in SAP2000. The different solver
options typically give identical results for most of the analysis examples. For a few
numerically sensitive problems the different solver options may give slightly different
results. The results presented in this document are those obtained using the Advanced
equation solver running as a separate 32bit process on an Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU
with the Windows 7 Professional 64-bit operating system.
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.
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.
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%). For
experimental values, the difference between the SAP2000 results and the
independent results does not exceed twenty five percent (25%).
Unacceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference

between the SAP2000 results and the independent results exceeds five percent
(5%). For internal force and stress values, the difference between the SAP2000
results and the independent results exceeds ten percent (10%). For experimental
values, the difference between the SAP2000 results and the independent results
exceeds twenty five percent (25%).
METHODOLOGY - 1
REVISION NO.: 14
The percentage difference between results is typically calculated using the following
formula:
SAP2000 Result
Percent Difference = 100 -1
Independent Result
SUMMARY OF EXAMPLES
The example problems are categorized into nine groups based on the structural elements
used or design type in the example. Table 1 defines the nine groups, illustrates the
example problem numbering system used for each group, and identifies the summary
table used for each group.
TABLE 1: GROUPING OF EXAMPLE PROBLEMS

Structural Summary
Group Elements Tested Example Numbering Table
1 Frame 1-001, 1-002, , 1-xxx Table 2-1
2 Shell 2-001, 2-002, , 2-xxx Table 2-2
3 Plane 3-001, 3-002, , 3-xxx Table 2-3
4 Asolid 4-001, 4-002, , 4-xxx Table 2-4
5 Solid 5-001, 5-002, , 5-xxx Table 2-5
6 Link 6-001, 6-002, , 6-xxx Table 2-6
7 Cable 7-001, 7-002, , 7-xxx Table 2-7
8 Steel Frame Code Name Ex### Table 2-8
9 Concrete Frame Code Name Ex### Table 2-9
As shown in Table 1, Tables 2-1 through 2-9 summarize the validation and verification
examples for each of the nine categories. Tables 2-1 through 2-9 include the example
number, the problem title, a summary of the program features tested and the method of
independent verification.
METHODOLOGY - 2
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF GROUP 1 (FRAME) EXAMPLES

Method of
Exam. Independent
No. Problem Title Program Features Tested Verification
Calculation and application of
Self load
Projected, uniformly distributed load
Application of
Hand calculation
Uniformly distributed load in global coordinates
using the unit load
General Uniformly distributed load in frame object local
1-001 method described on
Loading coordinates
page 244 in Cook
Trapezoidal and triangular distributed load on
and Young 1985.
frames
Joint moments and forces
Static analysis of frames under all of these loading
types
The specification of
Hand calculation
Joint patterns
using standard
The application of
thermal expansion
Temperature increase
Temperature formulas and using
1-002 Transverse temperature gradient
Loading Table 3 items 6a and
The calculation of
6c on page 107 in
Displacements in free expansion
Roark and Young
Reaction forces in restrained case caused by
1975.
temperature loads
The application of Hand calculation
Distributed and
Distributed moments (uniform, trapezoidal, using equation 8.1.3
1-003 Concentrated
triangular) to frame objects on page 284 in Cook
Moments
Concentrated moments to frame objects and Young 1985.
Hand calculation
using the beam
deflection formulas in
Table 3 item 1a and
Rotated Local Frame local axes rotated from global axes
1-004 Table 3 item 2a on
Axes Use of AISC sections
pages 96 and 98,
respectively, in Table
3 in Roark and
Young 1975.
Settlement of support in frame structures

Hand calculation
Rotation of support in frame structures
using the unit load
Displacement Settlement of support with linear (translational) spring
1-005 method described on
Loading Rotation of support with rotational spring
page 244 in Cook
Skewed supports
and Young 1985.
Skewed support settlement
Structural behavior of a non-prismatic frame section
Non-Prismatic Self weight calculations Hand calculation
Sections and Linear variation of section area using the unit load
1-006 Automatic Linear, parabolic and cubic variation of moment of method described on
Frame inertia page 244 in Cook
Subdivision Linear variation of section torsional constant and Young 1985.
Automatic frame subdivision
METHODOLOGY - 3
REVISION NO.: 14

Method of
Exam. Independent
The end releases in a frame element, including
Axial release
Hand calculation
1-007 End Releases Shear release
using basic statics.
Bending release
The related frame static analysis
The partial fixity end releases in a frame element, Hand calculation
including using the unit load
Partial Fixity
1-008 Shear partial fixity method described on
End Releases
Bending partial fixity page 244 in Cook
The application of gravity load to a frame object and Young 1985.
Hand calculation
Prestress tendon with parabolic tendon profile and
using basic principles
Prestress different eccentricities at the two ends and the unit load
1-009 Applied To Prestress tendon modeled usings loads
method described on
Frame Objects Prestress tendon modeled as elements
page 244 in Cook
Prestress losses
and Young 1985.
The use of end offsets in frames, including
Hand calculation
Non-rigid offsets
using the unit load
Partially rigid offsets
1-010 End Offsets method described on
Fully rigid offsets
page 244 in Cook
The effect of end offsets on the frame static analysis and Young 1985.
results
Cardinal point Hand calculation

1-011 Insertion Point
Joint offsets using statics.
Hand calculation
No Tension using the unit load
and No Tension and compression limits for frame objects method described on
1-012
Compression End releases page 244 in Cook
Frame Objects and Young 1985
together with statics.
Simply Hand calculated

Supported Frame line spring assignments using formulas
1-013 Beam on Static analysis of beam on elastic foundation presented in Problem
Elastic Automatic frame subdivision 3 on page 23 of
Foundation Timoshenko 1956.
Hand calculation
Eigenvalue analysis of a frame with unequal moment based on formulas
Eigenvalue
1-014 of inertia values (I22 I33) for bending modes presented on page
Problem
Automatic frame subdivision 313 of Clough and
Penzien 1975.
METHODOLOGY - 4
REVISION NO.: 14

Method of
Exam. Independent
Steady state analysis of frame systems
Comparison with
Steady State Time history analysis of frame systems with periodic
illustrative example
1-015 Harmonic loading
20.2 on page 434 of
Loads Line mass assignment to frame objects
Paz 1985.
Hand calculation
Tension using equation 23 on
P-Delta force assignment to frame objects
Stiffening Using page 28 and
1-016 Nonlinear static analysis using the P-Delta option
P-Delta equations 43 and 45
Analysis on page 43 of
Timoshenko 1956.
Hand calculation
Vibration of a Static nonlinear analysis using the P-Delta option to using vibration theory
1-017 String Under provide tension stiffening presented on pages
Tension Modal analysis of frame for eigenvalues 506 though 510 of
Kreyszig 1983.
Hand calculation
Bending, Shear
Calculation of bending, shear and axial deformations using the unit load
and Axial
1-018 in a rigid frame method described on
Deformations in
Frame property modification factors page 244 in Cook
a Rigid Frame
and Young 1985.
Hand calculation
using formulas
presented in Article
Buckling of a Buckling analysis of a rigid frame
1-019 2.4 on pages 62
Rigid Frame Automatic frame subdivision
though 66 of
Timoshenko and
Gere 1961.
Response
Spectrum Modal analysis of frame for eigenvalues and time Comparison with
Analysis of a periods example 13.11 on
1-020
Two- Response spectrum analysis page 521 of Chopra
Dimensional Joint masses 1995.
Rigid Frame
Comparison with
results published in
Bathe and Wilson
Bathe and
1972 and
Wilson Modal analysis for eigenvalues
1-021 comparison with
Eigenvalue Line mass assignment to frame objects
results from another
Problem
computer program
published in
Peterson 1981.
METHODOLOGY - 5
REVISION NO.: 14

Method of
Exam. Independent
Diaphragm constraint Comparison with
Joint force assignments results from another
Two-
Joint mass assignments computer program
Dimensional
Modal analysis for eigenvalues published by
1-022 Moment Frame
Response spectrum analysis Engineering/Analysis
with Static and
Modal time history analysis for base excitation and Computers/
Dynamic Loads
Direct integration time history analysis for base Structures
excitation International.
Comparison with
results from another
ASME Three-dimensional frame analysis computer program
1-023 Eigenvalue Modal analysis using eigenvectors published in
Problem Joint mass assignments Peterson 1981 and in
DeSalvo and
Swanson 1977.
Response
Three-dimensional frame analysis Comparison with
Spectrum
Modal analysis using eigenvectors results from another
Analysis of a
1-024 Rigid diaphragm constraint computer program
Three-
Joint mass assignments published in
Dimensional
Response spectrum analysis Peterson 1981.
Moment Frame
Response
Three-dimensional frame analysis Comparison with
Spectrum
Modal analysis using eigenvectors results from another
Analysis of a
1-025 Rigid diaphragm constraint computer program
Three-
Joint mass assignments published in
Dimensional
Response spectrum analysis Peterson 1981.
Braced Frame
Hand calculation
using the unit load
method described on
Moment and Static nonlinear analysis of a frame structure using page 244 in Cook
1-026
Shear Hinges moment and shear hinges and Young 1985
together with basic
deflection formulas
and superposition.
Hand calculation
using the unit load
Construction Nonlinear static analysis using the construction method described on
1-027 Sequence sequence loading option page 244 in Cook
Loading Frame end releases and Young 1985
together with basic
deflection formulas.
METHODOLOGY - 6
REVISION NO.: 14

Method of
Exam. Independent
Static nonlinear analysis of frame structure with large
Large Axial axial displacements using the SAP2000 P-Delta plus Hand calculation
1-028
Displacements large displacements option using basic statics.
Frame end releases
Hand calculation and
Static nonlinear analysis of frame structure with large Equation 4 in Article
Large Bending
1-029 bending displacements using the SAP2000 P-Delta 7.1 of Chapter 7 on
Displacements
plus large displacements option page 91 of Roark
and Young 1975.
Comparison with
results published in
Moving load case
1-030 Moving Loads Appendix A of
Multi-step static load case for vehicles AASHTO 1990 and
hand calculation.
METHODOLOGY - 7
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-2: SUMMARY OF GROUP 2 (SHELL) EXAMPLES

Method of
Exam. Problem Independent
No. Description Program Features Tested Verification
Hand calculation
based theory in
Membrane analysis using shell elements Timoshenko and
Patch Test With Plate bending analysis using shell elements Goodier 1951 and
2-001 Prescribed Thin-plate option Timoshenko and
Displacements Thick-plate option Woinowsky-Krieger
Joint displacement loading 1959. Results also
published in MacNeal
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
using the unit load
Membrane analysis using shell elements method described on
Plate bending analysis using shell elements page 244 in Cook
Straight Beam
Effect of shell element aspect ratio and Young 1985 and
2-002 with Static
Effect of geometrical distortion of shell element from using formulas from
Loads
rectangular Roark and Young
Joint force loading 1975. Results also
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
using the unit load
method described on
Curved Beam Membrane analysis using shell elements
page 244 in Cook
2-003 with Static Plate bending analysis using shell elements
and Young 1985.
Loads Joint force loading
Results also
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
using the unit load
method described on
Twisted Beam Membrane analysis using shell elements
page 244 in Cook
2-004 with Static Plate bending analysis using shell elements
and Young 1985.
Loads Joint force loading Results also
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
based theory in
Rectangular Plate bending analysis using shell elements Timoshenko and
2-005 Plate with Static Uniform load applied to shell elements Woinowsky-Krieger
Loads Joint force loading 1959. Results also
and Harder 1985.
METHODOLOGY - 8
REVISION NO.: 14

Method of
Some results
and Harder 1985.
Other results scaled
Three-dimensional analysis using shell elements
Scordelis-Lo from plotted results in
Self weight applied to shell elements
2-006 Roof with Static Zienkiewicz 1977
Gravity load applied to shell elements
Loads that were calculated
Uniform load applied to shell elements
using theory
presented in
Scordelis and Lo
1964.
Hemispherical
Three-dimensional analysis using shell elements Results published in
Shell Structure
2-007 Joint local axes MacNeal and Harder
with Static Joint force loads 1985.
Loads
Eigenvalue analysis using shell elements Hand calculation

Cantilever Plate
Area object mass assignment using Table 7.7 on
2-008 Eigenvalue Area object automatic mesh page 7-30 of Harris
Problem
Area object stiffness modifiers and Crede 1976.
Hand calculation
using equation 185
Plate bending analysis using shell elements
Plate on Elastic on page 275 of
2-009 Area object spring assignment
Foundation Timoshenko and
Joint force loads
Woinowsky-Krieger
1959.
Hand calculation
Cylinder with Three-dimensional analysis using shell elements using item 1b in
2-010 Internal Surface pressure load applied to shell elements Table 29 on page
Pressure Joint local axes 448 of Roark and
Young 1975.
Results scaled from

plotted results in
ASME Cooling Three-dimensional analysis using shell elements
Zienkiewicz 1977
Tower Problem Joint patterns
2-011 that were calculated
with Static Wind Shell element surface pressure load using joint
using theory
Pressure pattern
presented in Albasiny
and Martin 1967.
Plate Bending Plate bending analysis of shell elements when shear Results published in
when Shear deformations are significant example shown on
2-012
Deformations Area object stiffness modifiers page 376 of Roark
Are Significant Frame distributed loads and Young 1975.
METHODOLOGY - 9
REVISION NO.: 14

Method of
Temperature
Hand calculation
Load that Is
using equation 1.3.4
2-013 Constant Temperature loading for shell elements
on page 9 of Cook
Through Shell
and Young 1985.
Thickness
Hand calculation
Temperature using formulas
Temperature gradient loading for shell elements
Gradient presented in item 8e
2-014 Area object local axes
Through Shell of Table 24 on page
Joint local axes
Thickness 361 of Roark and
Young 1975.
Hand calculated
Plate bending analysis of shells
Orthotropic using theory
2-015 Orthotropic material properties
Plate presented in Chapter
Area object stiffness modifiers
6 of Ugural 1981.
Buckling analysis of shells Hand calculated

Automatic area meshing (N x N) with added restraints
using theory
Out-of-Plane Joint springs
2-016 presented in
Buckling Frame property modifiers
Timoshenko and
Frame distributed load
Gere 1961.
Frame automatic subdivide at intermediate joints
Hand calculated
Buckling analysis of shells using equation 2-4
In-Plane
2-017 Joint force loads on page 48 of
Buckling
Active degrees of freedom Timoshenko and
Gere 1961.
Static nonlinear analysis of shell structure with large
Large Axial axial displacements using the SAP2000 P-Delta plus Hand calculation
2-018
Displacements large displacements option using basic statics.
Joint constraints
Hand calculation and
Static nonlinear analysis of shell structure with large Equation 4 in Article
Large Bending bending displacements using the SAP2000 P-Delta
2-019 7.1 of Chapter 7 on
Displacements plus large displacements option
page 91 of Roark
Automatic area meshing
and Young 1975.
Hand calculation
different eccentricities at the two ends
Prestress Prestress tendon modeled using loads and applied to
and the unit load
2-020 Applied to Area area objects
method described on
Objects Prestress tendon modeled as elements and applied to
page 244 in Cook
area objects
and Young 1985.
Prestress losses
METHODOLOGY - 10
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-3: SUMMARY OF GROUP 3 (PLANE) EXAMPLES

Method of
Hand calculation
based theory in
Patch Test With Membrane analysis using plane stress elements Timoshenko and
3-001 Prescribed Incompatible bending mode option for plane elements Goodier 1951.
Displacements Joint displacement loading Results also
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
using the unit load
method described on
Membrane analysis using plane elements
page 244 in Cook
Straight Beam Effect of plane element aspect ratio
and Young 1985 and
3-002 with Static Effect of geometrical distortion of plane element from
using formulas from
Loads rectangular
Roark and Young
Joint force loading
1975. Results also
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
using the unit load
method described on
Curved Beam
Membrane analysis using plane stress elements page 244 in Cook
3-003 with Static
Joint force loading and Young 1985.
Loads
Results also
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
based on theory in
Timoshenko 1956
Analysis using plane stress elements and based on
Thick-Walled
3-004 Analysis using plane strain elements formulas in Roark
Cylinder
Plane surface pressure load and Young 1975.
Results also
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
Pore pressure loading for planes
3-005 Pore Pressure using basic
Joint pattern
principles.
METHODOLOGY - 11
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-4: SUMMARY OF GROUP 4 (ASOLID) EXAMPLES

Method of
Soil Supporting Hand calculation
Analysis using asolid elements
Uniformly based on data
4-001 Asolid surface pressure load
Loaded Circular presented in Poulos
Incompatible bending modes for asolid objects
Footing and Davis 1974.
Hand calculation
based on theory in
Thick-Walled Analysis using asolid elements Timoshenko 1956.
4-002
Cylinder Asolid surface press ure load Results also
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
based on equations
Rotating Analysis using asolid elements presented in Item 8
4-003
Annular Disk Asolid rotate load on page 567 of
Roark and Young
1975.
Hand calculation
Pore pressure loading for asolids
4-004 Pore Pressure using basic
Joint pattern
principles.
METHODOLOGY - 12
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-5: SUMMARY OF GROUP 5 (SOLID) EXAMPLES

Method of
Patch Test With Results also
Patch test using solid elements
5-001 Prescribed published in MacNeal
Joint displacement loading
Displacements and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
Solid object bending with and without the using the unit load
Straight Beam incompatible modes option method described on
Effect of solid object aspect ratio page 244 in Cook
5-002 with Static
Effect of geometrical distortion of solid object from a and Young 1985.
Loads
cube Results also
Joint force loading published in MacNeal
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
using the unit load
method described on
Curved Beam Solid object bending with the incompatible bending
page 244 in Cook
5-003 with Static modes option
and Young 1985.
Results also
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
using the unit load
method described on
Twisted Beam Solid object bending and twist with the incompatible page 244 in Cook
5-004 with Static bending modes option
and Young 1985.
Results also
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
based theory in
Rectangular Plate bending analysis using solid elements Timoshenko and
5-005 Plate with Static Surface pressure load applied to solid objects Woinowsky-Krieger
Loads Joint force loading 1959. Results also
and Harder 1985.
METHODOLOGY - 13
REVISION NO.: 14

Method of
Some results
and Harder 1985.
Other results scaled
Scordelis-Lo Three-dimensional analysis using solid objects from plotted results in
5-006 Roof with Static Self weight applied to solid objects Zienkiewicz 1977
Loads Gravity load applied to shell objects that were calculated
using theory
presented in
Scordelis and Lo
1964.
Hemispherical
Results published in
Dome Structure Three-dimensional analysis using solid elements
5-007 MacNeal and Harder
with Static Joint force loads 1985.
Loads
Hand calculation
based on theory in
Analysis using solid elements
Thick-Walled Timoshenko 1956.
5-008 Solid surface pressure load
Cylinder Results also
Joint local axes
and Harder 1985.
Hand calculation
different eccentricities at the two ends
Prestress Prestress tendon modeled using loads and applied to
and the unit load
5-009 Applied to Solid solid objects
method described on
Objects Prestress tendon modeled as elements and applied to page 244 in Cook
solid objects
and Young 1985.
Prestress losses
Hand calculation
Buckling analysis of solids using equation 2-4
5-010 Buckling Joint force loads on page 48 of
Active degrees of freedom Timoshenko and
Gere 1961.
Hand calculation
Temperature using equation 1.3.4
5-011 Temperature loading for solid elements
Load on page 9 of Cook
and Young 1985.
Hand calculation
Plate bending analysis using solid elements using equation 185
Plate on Elastic Solid object surface spring assignment on page 275 of
5-012
Foundation Solid object automatic mesh Timoshenko and
Joint force loads Woinowsky-Krieger
1959.
METHODOLOGY - 14
REVISION NO.: 14

Method of
Pore pressure loading for solids Hand calculation
5-013 Pore Pressure Solid local axis assignments using basic
Joint pattern principles.
METHODOLOGY - 15
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-6: SUMMARY OF GROUP 6 (LINK) EXAMPLES

Method of
Linear links Hand calculation

Modal load case for eigenvectors using theory
Linear Link with Modal time history load case presented in section
6-001
Ramp Loading Direct integration time history load case 4.5 on pages 126
Ramp loading through 129 of
Chopra 1995.
Comparison with
Multi-linear Multi-linear links defined link force-
6-002 Displacement-controlled nonlinear static analysis
Elastic Link deformation
characteristics.
Gap element links
Force-controlled nonlinear static analysis
Nonlinear modal time history analysis Hand calculation
Nonlinear direct time history analysis using the unit load
6-003 Gap Element Frame point loads method described on
Joint force loads page 244 in Cook
Joint mass assignments and Young 1985.
Ramp loading for time histories
Hand calculation
Hook element links
using standard
6-004 Hook Element Force-controlled nonlinear static analysis
thermal expansion
Frame temperature loads
formulas.
Damper element links
Damper Hand calculation
Linear link elements
Element Under using equation 3.2.6
6-005 Nonlinear modal time history analysis
Harmonic on page 70 in
Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis
Loading Chopra 1995.
Joint force loads
Damper links with linear velocity exponents
Comparison with
Frame end length offsets
experimental results
Joint mass assignments
SUNY Buffalo from shake table
Modal analysis for ritz vectors
Damper with tests published in
6-006 Linear modal time history analysis
Linear Velocity Section 5, pages 61
Nonlinear modal time history analysis
Exponent through 73, of
Linear direct integration time history analysis
Scheller and
Constantinou 1999.
Generalized displacements
Comparison with
Damper links with nonlinear velocity exponents
experimental results
SUNY Buffalo Frame end length offsets
from shake table
Damper with Joint mass assignments
tests published in
6-007 Nonlinear Modal analysis for ritz vectors
Section 5, pages 61
Velocity Nonlinear modal time history analysis
through 73, of
Exponent Nonlinear direct integration time history analysis
Scheller and
Generalized displacements
Constantinou 1999.
METHODOLOGY - 16
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-6: SUMMARY OF GROUP 6 (LINK) EXAMPLES

Method of
Plastic Wen links Comparison with
Plastic Wen Displacement-controlled nonlinear static analysis defined link force-
6-008
Link Link local axis assignments deformation
Link gravity load characteristics.
Comparison with
Plastic kinematic links
Plastic defined link force-
6-009 Displacement-controlled nonlinear static analysis
Kinematic Link deformation
Link gravity load
characteristics.
Comparison with
results from the
Rubber isolator links
computer program
Linear links
SUNY Buffalo 3D-BASIS-ME (see
Zero-length, two-joint link elements
Eight-Story Tsopelas,
Diaphragm constraints
6-010 Building with Constantinou and
Rubber Reinhorn 1994)
Isolators published in Section
2, pages 5 through
Generalized displacements 23, of Scheller and
Constantinou 1999.
Friction pendulum link elements

Comparison with
Damper link elements
SUNY Buffalo experimental results
Zero-length, two-joint link elements
Seven-Story from shake table
Diaphragm constraints
Building with tests published in
6-011 Frame end length offsets
Friction Section 4, pages 43
Pendulum through 59, of
Isolators Scheller and
Constantinou 1999.
Joint masses
Hand calculation
using formulas and
Frequency
Frequency dependent links theory presented in
6-012 Dependent
Steady state analysis section 3.2 on pages
Links
68 through 69 of
Chopra 1995.
METHODOLOGY - 17
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-7: SUMMARY OF GROUP 7 (CABLE) EXAMPLES

Method of
Uniform load applied to cable elements Comparison with
Uniform and
Temperature load applied to cable elements results published in
7-001 Temperature Joint displacement loading Figure 5 of Peyrot
Loading
Nonlinear static analysis and Goulois, 1979.
Uniform load applied to cable elements Comparison with

Uniform and
7-002 Concentrated Concentrated load applied to cable elements results published in
Response combination results Section 4.6.2, Table
Loading
Nonlinear static analysis 4.2, of Tibert, 1999.
Comparison with
Uniform load applied to cable nets
Prestressed results published in
7-003 Concentrated load applied to cable nets
Cable Net Section 4.6.3, Table
Nonlinear static analysis
4.4, of Tibert, 1999.
METHODOLOGY - 18
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-8: SUMMARY OF GROUP 8 (STEEL FRAME DESIGN) EXAMPLES

Method of
Design Independent
Code Examples Program Features Tested Verification
Examples F.1-2a and
AISC 360- Ex001 Bending of a wide flange member
E.2 of AISC Design
05 Ex002 Compression of a built-up wide flange member Examples, Vol. 13.
Examples F.1-2a and

AISC 360- Ex001 Bending of a wide flange member
E.2 of AISC Design
10 Ex002 Compression of a built-up wide flange member
Examples, Vol. 13.
Example 3 of
Allowable Stress
AISC Ex001 Bending of a wide flange member
Design Manual of
ASD-89 Ex002 Compression of a wide flange member
Steel Construction,
9th Ed.
Examples 5.1 and

Bending of a wide flange member
AISC Ex001 6.2 of LRFD Manual
Combined compression and biaxial bending of a wide
LRFD-93 Ex002 of Steel Construction,
flange member
2nd Ed.
Compression of a wide flange member
Ex001
AS 4100- Bending of a wide flange member
Ex002 Hand calculations.
1998 Combined compression and bending of a wide flange
Ex003
member
Hand calculations
BS 5950- Ex001 and Example 15 of
Combined compression and bending of a square tube
2000 Ex002 SCI Publication
member
P326.
Examples 1, 2, and 3
CSA S16- Ex001 of the Handbook of
Combined compression and bending of a wide flange
09 Ex002 Steel Construction to
member
CSA S16-01.
Examples 1, 2, and 3
CSA S16- Ex001 of the Handbook of
14 Ex002 Steel Construction to
member
CSA S16-01.
Ex001 member
EN 3-2005 Ex002 Bending of a wide flange member Hand calculations.
Ex003 Combined compression and bending of a wide flange
member
Ex001
IS 800- Bending of a wide flange member
2007 Combined compression and biaxial bending of a wide
Ex003
flange member
METHODOLOGY - 19
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-8: SUMMARY OF GROUP 8 (STEEL FRAME DESIGN) EXAMPLES

Method of
Design Independent
Ex001 Bending of a wide flange member
KBC 2009 Hand calculations.
Ex002 Compression of a built-up wide flange member
Ex001 member
NTC 2008 Hand calculations.
Ex002 Combined compression and bending of a wide flange
member
Ex001
NZS 3404- Bending of wide flange member
1997 Combined compression and bending of a wide flange
Ex003
member
METHODOLOGY - 20
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-9: SUMMARY OF GROUP 9 (CONCRETE FRAME DESIGN) EXAMPLES

Method of
Design Independent
Shear reinforcement design of a rectangular beam
ACI 318- Ex001
Flexural reinforcement design of a rectangular beam Hand calculations .
08 Ex002
P-M interaction check of a rectangular column
ACI 318- Ex001
Flexural reinforcement design of a rectangular beam Hand calculations.
11 Ex002
ACI 318- Ex001
14 Ex002
Shear reinforcement design of a T-beam
AS 3600- Ex001
Flexural reinforcement design of a T-beam Hand calculations .
2009 Ex002
BS 8110- Ex001
1997 Ex002
CSA Ex001
A23.3-04 Ex002
CSA Ex001
A23.3-14 Ex002
Ex001
EN 2-2004 Flexural reinforcement design of a rectangular beam Hand calculations.
Ex002
Example 1 from SP-
Shear reinforcement design of a rectangular beam 16 Design Aids for
IS 456- Ex001 Flexural reinforcement design of a rectangular beam Reinforced Concrete
2000 Ex002
P-M interaction check of a rectangular column and hand
calculations.
Ex001
KBC 2009 Flexural reinforcement design of a rectangular beam Hand calculations.
Ex002
Ex001
NTC 2008 Flexural reinforcement design of a rectangular beam Hand calculations.
Ex002
NZS 3101- Ex001 Flexural reinforcement design of a rectangular beam Hand calculations.
2006 Ex002
RCDF Ex001
2004 Ex002
METHODOLOGY - 21
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 2-9: SUMMARY OF GROUP 9 (CONCRETE FRAME DESIGN) EXAMPLES

Method of
Design Independent
Example 3.4 of
Shear reinforcement design of a rectangular beam Chanakya Arya,
SS CP 65- Ex001
Flexural reinforcement design of a rectangular beam Design of Structural
1999 Ex002
P-M interaction check of a rectangular column Elements and hand
calculations.
TS 500- Ex001
2000 Ex002
METHODOLOGY - 22
REVISION NO.: 14
MATRIX OF PROGRAM FEATURES COVERED IN EXAMPLES

This section presents tables illustrating which element assignments, including loads, and
which load case types are addressed in each of the analysis examples. Table 3 shows the
contents of the matrix tables.
TABLE 3: CONTENTS OF MATRIX TABLES

Features Table
Joint assignments including loads Table 4-1
Frame object assignments including loads Table 4-2
Area object assignments including loads Table 4-3
Solid object assignments including loads Table 4-4
Link object assignments including loads Table 4-5
Cable object assignment including loads Table 4-6
Load case types Table 4-7
As illustrated in Table 3, the program features matrices are presented in tables 4-1
though 4-6. These tables are shown on the following pages.
METHODOLOGY - 23
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 4-1: JOINT ASSIGNMENT MATRIX

Joint Assignments Example Problems
Restraints Most
Constraints 1-022, 1-024, 1-025, 2-018, 6-010, 6-011
Springs 1-005, 2-016
Masses 1-020, 1-022, 1-023, 1-024, 1-025, 6-003, 6-006, 6-007, 6-011
Local axes 1-005, 2-007, 2-010, 2-014, 5-008
Panel zones
Joint patterns 1-002, 2-011, 3-005, 4-004, 5-013
1-001, 1-003, 1-004, 1-006, 1-010, 1-011, 1-012, 1-016, 1-019,

1-022, 1-026, 1-027, 1-028, 1-029, 2-002, 2-003, 2-004, 2-005,
Joint forces
2-007, 2-009, 2-017, 3-002, 3-003, 5-003, 5-004, 5-005, 5-012,
6-003, 6-005
Joint displacements 1-005, 2-001, 3-001
METHODOLOGY - 24
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 4-2: FRAME OBJECT ASSIGNMENT MATRIX

Frame Assignments Example Problems
Non-prismatic section 1-006
1-001, 1-002, 1-004, 1-005, 1-006, 1-013, 1-014, 1-018, 1-020,

Frame property modifiers
1-021, 1-024, 2-016
End releases 1-007, 1-012, 1-028
Partial fixity 1-008
Local axes 1-004
End length offsets 1-010, 6-006, 6-007, 6-011
Insertion point 1-011
Prestress definition 1-009
P-Delta force 1-016
Tension/compression limits 1-012
Hinges 1-026
Line springs 1-013
Line mass 1-015, 1-021
Automatic frame subdivide 1-006, 1-013, 1-014, 1-015, 1-017, 1-019, 2-016
Gravity load 1-008
Point load 1-001, 1-004, 1-007, 1-011, 1-013, 6-003
Distributed load 1-001, 1-003, 1-008, 1-015, 1-016, 1-018, 2-012, 2-016
Temperature load 1-002, 6-004
Prestress load 1-009
Frame self weight 1-006, 1-009
METHODOLOGY - 25
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 4-3: AREA OBJECT TYPE AND ASSIGNMENT MATRIX

Area Type and Assignments Example Problems
Shell type area object 2-001 through 2-020
Plane type area object 3-001 through 3-005
Asolid type area object 4-001 through 4-004
Stiffness modifiers 2-008, 2-012, 2-015
Local axes 2-014
Area springs 2-009
Area Mass 2-008
Automatic area mesh 2-008, 2-016, 2-019
Gravity load (all) 2-006
Uniform load (shell) 2-005, 2-006
Uniform load to frames (shell)
Surface pressure (all) 2-010, 2-011,3-004, 4-001, 4-002
Pore pressure (plane, asolid) 3-005, 4-004
Temperature load (all) 2-013, 2-014
Rotate load (asolid) 4-003
Wind pressure coefficients

(shell)
General prestress applied to 2-020

area objects
METHODOLOGY - 26
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 4-4: SOLID OBJECT ASSIGNMENT MATRIX

Solid Assignments Example Problems
Local axes 5-013
Surface springs 5-012
Automatic solid mesh 5-012
Gravity load 5-006
Surface pressure load 5-005, 5-008
Pore pressure load 5-013
Temperature load 5-011
General prestress applied to 5-009

solid objects
METHODOLOGY - 27
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 4-5: LINK OBJECT TYPE AND ASSIGNMENT MATRIX

Link Type and Assignments Example Problems
Linear link 6-001, 6-005, 6-010
Multilinear elastic link 6-002
Gap (compression only) link 6-003
Hook (tension only) link 6-004
Damper link 6-005, 6-006, 6-007, 6-011
Plastic (Wen) link 6-008
Plastic (kinematic) link 6-009
Rubber isolator link 6-010
Friction isolator link 6-011
Frequency dependent link 6-012
Local axes 6-008
Gravity load 6-008, 6-009
TABLE 4-6: CABLE OBJECT TYPE AND ASSIGNMENT MATRIX

Link Type and Assignments Example Problems
Cable element 7-001, 7-002
Cable net 7-003
Rubber isolator link 6-010
Friction isolator link 6-011
Frequency dependent link 6-012
Uniform load 7-001, 7-002
Temperature load 7-001
METHODOLOGY - 28
REVISION NO.: 14
TABLE 4-7: LOAD CASE TYPE MATRIX

Load case type Example Problems
Linear static Most
Multi-step static 1-030
1-012, 1-016, 1-017, 1-026, 6-002, 6-003, 6-004, 6-008, 6-009,

Nonlinear static
7-001, 7-002, 7-003
Nonlinear static with 1-027

construction sequence loading
Nonlinear static with large 1-028, 1-029, 2-018, 2-019

displacements
1-014, 1-017, 1-020, 1-021, 1-022, 1-023, 1-024, 1-025, 2-008

Modal for eigenvectors
6-001
Modal for ritz vectors 6-006, 6-007, 6-010, 6-011
Response spectrum 1-020, 1-022, 1-024, 1-025
Linear transient modal time 1-022, 6-001, 6-006

history
Linear periodic modal time 1-015

history
Nonlinear transient modal time 6-003, 6-005, 6-006, 6-007, 6-010, 6-011
history
Linear direct integration time 1-022, 6-001, 6-006

history
Nonlinear direct integration time 6-003, 6-005, 6-006, 6-007, 6-010, 6-011
history
Moving load 1-030
Buckling 1-019, 2-016, 2-017, 5-010
Steady state 1-015, 6-012
Power spectral density
METHODOLOGY - 29
REVISION NO.: 11
AUTOMATING THE SAP2000 VERIFICATION CHECKING PROCESS
Overview
The automated procedure for running the SAP2000 verification check uses
Visual Basic for Applications subroutines in specially prepared Excel files. The
subroutines run the SAP2000 models, process the results, and compare the results
with the published verification values. The Excel files are named
SAP2000_Verification_xxx.xls, SAP2000_Verification_SFD_xxx.xls, and
SAP2000_Verification_CFD_xxx.xls for analysis, steel frame design, and
concrete frame design, respectively. The xxx is a sequence of numbers (e.g., 909)
indicating the version of the SAP2000 program (e.g., version 9.0.9) from which
the comparison results in the Excel files were obtained.
Successful completion of the automated check using the Excel Visual Basic for
Applications subroutines requires that you have both Microsoft Excel and
Microsoft Access. Microsoft Access is run automatically (in the background) by
the Microsoft Excel verification subroutines.
If desired, instead of running the verification examples using Excel, they can be
run directly from SAP2000 using a batch file. If this method is used then only the
comparison of results is done using the Excel file. The advantage to running the
models using a batch file is that the verification will run faster. Running the
models using the Excel file is slower because Excel has to open and close
SAP2000 for each model whereas the batch file method starts out with SAP2000
open and never has to close or reopen it.
Important Note: The SAP2000 verification models (*.sdb files) must be exactly
as they were issued, with no user modifications. Otherwise the automated
procedure may not work as intended. If any doubt exists as to whether the
verification models have been modified, get the verification files from a fresh
SAP2000 installation or the SAP2000 DVD. See step 1 in the following section.
Important Note: All of the verification examples will run in the Ultimate
version of SAP 2000. Some of the examples will not run in the Basic, Plus, or
Advanced versions of the program.
AUTOMATING THE SAP2000 VERIFICATION CHECKING PROCESS - 1

REVISION NO.: 11
Steps for Automation if Analyses Are Run Using the Excel File
Use the following steps to perform the verification and check when the models
are run using the Excel file:
1. Choose or create a directory where the verification problems are to be

run. For the purposes of these instructions, we will call that new directory
C:\MyDir.
2. Delete all files in the C:\MyDir directory, if any.
3. From the SAP2000 Verification subdirectory where SAP2000 was

originally installed, copy all files into the C:\MyDir directory.
If the files in your SAP2000 Verification subdirectory have been

modified since they were installed, copy the files from the Verification
directory on your SAP2000 DVD or from a fresh installation. After
copying the files into C:\MyDir, be sure to select all files using
Windows Explorer and then click the File menu > Properties
command (in Windows Explorer) and turn off the Read Only attribute.
4. Open one of the three previously mentioned Excel files located in the
subfolders of the C:\MyDir directory. Be sure that macros are enabled
when you open the file.
5. In the Excel file go to the worksheet named Verification Control and do

the following:
a. Set the path to the Sap2000.exe file in cell C3. If the full path to
this file is C:\Program Files\Computers and Structures\Sap2000\
Sap2000.exe then cell C3 should contain C:\Program Files\
Computers and Structures\Sap2000\Sap2000.exe. An easy way to
set this path is to click the Browse for Sap2000.exe button, locate
the SAP2000.exe file and click Open. The correct path for the
selected file will be filled in cell C3.
b. Check that the path to the *.sdb files in cell C4 is C:\MyDir. If it

is not, type in the path to C:\MyDir or click the Set Path to
Location of Excel File button, which will automatically fill in cell
C4 with the path to C:\MyDir as long as the Excel file is located
in C:\MyDir.

REVISION NO.: 11
c. In cell E2 set the equation solver option as either Default, Force

Standard or Force Advanced. The Default option allows the
program to select the appropriate solver for the problem. The
Force Standard option forces the program to use the Standard
solver. The Force Advanced option forces the program to use the
Advanced solver. Note that the Advanced solver requires the
Advanced version of SAP2000. If you specify Force Advanced
and do not use the advanced version of the SAP2000 then the
Standard solver will be used. We recommend that you use Default
for this option.
d. In cell E3 set the option to delete analysis files. This item can be
Yes or No. We recommend using Yes.
e. In column D indicate which problems are to be automatically run.

A Yes in this column means the model is automatically run and
No means it is not run. The Set All To Be Run and Set All To
Not Be Run buttons can be useful when filling this column.
f. In column E indicate which problems are to be checked. A Yes in

this column means the model is checked and No means it is not
checked. The Set All To Be Checked and Set All To Not Be
Checked buttons can be useful when filling this column.
6. Click the Run Verification Check button to start running the models and
performing the verification checks. If the models are run the entire
verification may take several hours to complete. If only the checks are
performed then they may take several minutes to complete. A progress
report form indicates the example that the program is currently analyzing
or checking. A summary message box appears when the verification
process is complete.
If desired, before clicking the Run Verification button, click the

Clear Verification Check button to clear and reset any verification
check items that the Visual Basic for Applications subroutine may
have previously written to the Excel file. This step is not necessary
because it occurs automatically when the Run Verification button is
clicked. However, use of the Clear Verification Check button clearly
illustrates which items are filled by the Visual Basic for Applications
subroutine.

REVISION NO.: 11
Steps for Automation if Analyses Are Run Using Batch File in SAP2000
Use the following steps to perform the verification analyses and check when the
analyses are run using the batch file analysis capability in SAP2000:
1. Choose or create a directory where the verification problems are to be

run. For the purposes of these instructions, we will call that new directory
C:\MyDir.
2. Delete all files in the C:\MyDir directory, if any.
3. From the SAP2000 Verification subdirectory where SAP2000 was

originally installed, copy all files into the C:\MyDir directory.
If the files in your SAP2000 Verification subdirectory have been

modified since they were installed, copy the files from the Verification
directory on your SAP2000 DVD or from a fresh installation. After
copying the files into C:\MyDir, be sure to select all files using
Windows Explorer and then click the File menu > Properties
command (in Windows Explorer) and turn off the Read Only attribute.
4. Start SAP2000. When the program comes up, click the File menu >
Batch File Control command.
5. In the Batch File Control form, click the Browse for Existing Batch
Files button in the upper left corner of the form. Locate and open the
desired batch file from a subfolder of the C:\MyDir directory.
If the path name is not correct for the files (it should be pointing to
C:\MyDir), click the Change Filename Path button in the lower left
corner of the form to open the Batch File Path form.
In the Batch File Path form, make sure the Change the Path of All
Files option is selected. Then click the Select Path button, select the
path to C:\MyDir, and click OK to return to the Batch File Control
form. The path names in the Batch File Control form should now be
pointing to C:\MyDir.
6. Click the Run Models In Current Batch File List button in the upper
right corner of the form to automatically run all of the verification
problems.

REVISION NO.: 11
7. After the verification problems have been successfully run (this may take
several hours), open the Excel file located in the same folder as the batch
file. Go to the worksheet named Verification Control and do the
following:
a. Check that the path to the *.sdb files in cell C4 is C:\MyDir. If it

is not, type in the path to C:\MyDir or click the Set Path to
Location of Excel File button, which will automatically fill in cell
C4 with the path to C:\MyDir as long as the Excel file is located
in C:\MyDir.
b. In column D set the Run This Problem item to No for each

problem. Clicking the Set All To Not Be Run button will
automatically accomplish this item.
c. In column E indicate which problems are to be checked. A Yes in

this column means the model is checked and No means it is not
checked. The Set All To Be Checked and Set All To Not Be
Checked buttons can be useful when filling this column.
7. Click the Run Verification Check button to perform the verification

checks. This will take several minutes to complete. A progress report
form indicates the example that the program is currently checking. A
summary message box appears when the verification process is complete.
If desired, before clicking the Run Verification button, click the

Clear Verification Check button to clear and reset any verification
check items that the Visual Basic for Applications subroutine may
have previously written to the Excel file. This step is not necessary
because it occurs automatically when the Run Verification button is
clicked. However, use of the Clear Verification Check button clearly
illustrates which items are filled by the Visual Basic for Applications
subroutine.
Automated Verification Results

The automated verification results are all compiled in the respective Excel file.
The summary of the results is provided on the worksheet named Verification
Control.
Cell C2 reports the version of SAP2000 from which the published SAP2000
results were obtained.

REVISION NO.: 11
Cell C5 reports the date and time that the last check was performed.
Column F on the Verification Control worksheet reports the problem status. This
is either Not Checked, meaning that the considered problem has not been
checked, or it is the maximum percent difference between any published result
obtained from the Sap2000 version specified in cell C2 and the result obtained
for the verification. The percent difference for each item considered is calculated
as:
Verification Re sult Published Re sult

Percent Difference = 100 *
Published Re sult
Columns G and H on the Verification Control worksheet report the program

version (e.g., 8.1.2) and level (e.g., Advanced) that was found in the Program
Control table in the *.mdb files for a particular problem. Note that if all of the
*.mdb files for an example problem do not report the same program version then
the Column F item is reported as Varies. If all of the *.mdb files do not report the
same program level then the Column G item is reported as either Varies - Plus or
Varies Basic, where the Plus or Basic indicates the lowest reported program
level found in the *.mdb files for that example problem.
In addition to the summary of the check results shown on the Verification

Control worksheet, detailed results for each example are shown on separate
worksheets with the example name.
The example worksheets typically consist of five or more columns filled with
data, then a blank column, and then another four columns filled with data. The
following figure shows a typical example.

REVISION NO.: 11
The first five or more columns show the verification results as they are published
in the current verification examples. The formatting may in some cases be
different from the published tables, but the data is the same.
The last four columns are related to the results obtained from the current results.
The column labeled SAP2000 Result is automatically filled by the Excel macro
that is run, as described in the previous section.
The Number of Decimal Places column reports the number of decimal places that
are used for the comparison. It is equal to the number of decimal places used in
the published results.
The values in the Result for Comparison column are the values in the SAP2000
Result column rounded to the number of decimal places indicated in the Number
of Decimal Places column.
The % Diff From Version xxx column shows the percent difference between the
published Sap2000 result and the result obtained for the verification. The percent
difference is calculated as:
Verification Re sult Published Re sult

Percent Difference = 100 *
Published Re sult
Important: You should not edit anything in the Excel files except for cells C3
and C4 and Columns D and E on the Verification Control worksheet.

REVISION NO.: 14
SAP2000 Software Verification Log

Revision
Number Date Description
0 Jan. 8, 2003 Initial release for SAP2000 version 8.1.2
Initial release for SAP2000 version 8.30. Examples 1-016, 1-
1 Jan. 30, 2004
017, 1-019, 6-004, 6-005, and 6-011 were modified.
Intial release for SAP2000 version 9.00. Example 1-009 was
2 Aug. 26, 2004 modified. Examples 1-030, 2-020, 3-001 through 3-005, 4-001
through 4-004 and 5-001 through 5-013 were added.
Intial release for SAP2000 version 9.09. Results for Example
1-009, Example 1-030, Example 2-020, and Example 5-009
3 Feb. 23, 2005
were slightly modified. The process for automating the
verification check was also revised.
Intial release for SAP2000 version 9.11. Results for Example
4 Mar. 30, 2005
2-018 and Example 2-019 were slightly modified.
Initial release for Sap2000 version 10.00. Results for
5 Oct. 7, 2005 Examples 2-019 were slightly modified. The process for
automating the verification check was also revised.
Initial release for Sap2000 version 11.00. Results for Example
1-009, 2-019, 2-020, 5-009, 6-005, and 6-011 were slightly
6 Jan. 19, 2007 modified. Removed reference temperature from Example 1-
002, 2-013 and 5-011. Examples 7-001 through 7-003 were
added to verify cable elements.
Initial release for SAP2000 version 12.00. Results for
Example 1-009, 2-020, 5-009, and 6-011 were slightly
7 June 30, 2008 modified. Model 7-003 and its results were slightly modified.
Typographical error was fixed in Example 6-012. Load
patterns and load case terminology updated.
Initial release for SAP2000 version 14.00. Results for Example
2-005, 2-006, 2-015, 5-009, 6-010, and 6-011 were slightly
modified. Model 6-002 and its results were modified. Added
discussion of sensitivity to Example 6-011.
8 Apr. 24, 2009
Changes in Examples 2-005, 2-006, and 2-015 are due to a
change in the homogeneous shell element formulation
(Incident 17270).
LOG - 1
REVISION NO.: 14

Revision
Changes in Example 5-009 are due to a change in the method
of transferring tendon loads to elements (Incident 17300).
Changes in Example 6-002 are due to a change that allows

negative stiffness in link elements (Incident 17151).
Changes in Example 6-010 are due to a change in the stiffness

proportional damping formulation (Incident 17152).
Changes in Example 6-011 are due to the numerical sensitivity

of the problem. See Example 6-011 Conclusions section for
more information.
Initial release for CSiBridge version 15.00. Important note
indicating that verification also applies to CSiBridge was
added. Results for Example 6-005, 6-010 and 6-011 were
slightly modified.
The results presented in this document are now obtained using

the Advanced equation solver running as a separate 32bit
process on an Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU with the Windows 7
Professional 64-bit operating system.
Changes in Example 6-005 are due to the change in an internal

9 Oct. 1 2010
tolerance for nonlinear direct history analyses. (Incident
22645).
Changes in Example 6-002 are due to a change in how

reactions are calculated in nonlinear static and nonlinear direct
history analyses (Incident 10962).
Changes in Example 6-011 are due to the numerical sensitivity

of the problem. See Example 6-011 Conclusions section for
more information.
Initial release for Sap2000 version 15.00 and CSiBridge

10 June 9, 2011 version 15.10.
LOG - 2
REVISION NO.: 14

Revision
A note was added to Example 1-030 indicating that it applies
to CSiBridge only. The example uses features that are not
available in Sap2000V15.
The automation documentation has been updated to reflect

changes in the Excel sheet.
Initial release for CSiBridge 2014 v16.0.0.
The Excel spreadsheet has been updated to run using 64-bit

versions of Microsoft Excel.
The important note has been updated to indicate that the

design examples do not apply to CSiBridge.
11 Aug. 5, 2013
The automation documentation has been updated to describe
how to run design verification examples for SAP2000.
Results for Example 6-011 were slightly modified. Changes in

Example 6-011 are due to the numerical sensitivity of the
problem. See Example 6-011 Conclusions section for more
information.
Initial release for SAP2000 v16.0.0.
12 Sept. 6, 2013
The steel frame and concrete frame design verification suites
are included with the release of SAP2000 v16.0.0.
Initial release for SAP2000 v17.0.0 and CSiBridge 2015
v17.0.0.
Results for Example 2-019 were slightly modified. This is due

to Incident 64466 for CSiBridge and SAP2000 as described in
the Release Notes: The iteration algorithm for nonlinear direct-
13 July 22, 2014
integration time-history analysis has been enhanced to
improve the rate of convergence and to reduce the time of
analysis for certain models. Models run in the new version
should produce the same results as in the previous version,
subject to minor variations approximately within the
convergence tolerance. Larger differences may be observed for
LOG - 3
REVISION NO.: 14

Revision
ill-conditioned or sensitive models, but in such cases the new
results should generally be better.
Results for Example 6-005 were slightly modified. This is due

to Incidents 47495 (CSiBridge) and 47496 (SAP2000), as
described in the Release Notes: The speed of nonlinear direct-
integration time-history analysis has been significantly
increased for models containing nonlinear dampers having
fractional exponents on the velocity term. This is due to
improved rate of convergence for nonlinear iteration. There
has been no change to the actual force-velocity or force-
displacement behavior of the damper link element. The
response for models run in previous versions may differ very
slightly from that of the current version due to the resulting
change in the process of iteration. Such changes can be
expected to be on the order of the convergence tolerance for
the load case.
Published results for Example 6-011 have not been modified

for this release as they have for some previous releases.
However, results for Example 6-011 may differ from the
published values due to the numerical sensitivity of the
problem. See Example 6-011 Conclusions section for more
information.
v18.0.0.
Removed design verification examples for older codes which

14 October 16, 2015 have been removed from this version of the software under
Incident 81910.
Added examples for steel and concrete frame design according

to KBC 2009 under Incidents 82660 and 82661, respectively.
v18.1.0.
15 February 3, 2016
Updated select results of Example 6-003. This is due to
LOG - 4
REVISION NO.: 14

Revision
Incident 68068 (CSiBridge & SAP2000), as described in the
Release Notes: An event-to-event solution strategy has been
implemented as an option for nonlinear direct-integration
time-history load cases. This is similar to the use of events as
already available for nonlinear static load cases. Time steps
will be automatically subdivided where significant changes
occur in the stiffness of certain elements and hinges, such as at
yielding, unloading, or strength loss. Iteration is performed at
the end of the full time step as needed to achieve convergence.
Previously the event-to-event option was available but had no
effect. By default event-to-event stepping is turned off for each
time-history load case so as to preserve the previous behavior.
Additionally, events have been added for more types of
elements and hinges. Previously events were only
implemented in nonlinear static load cases for single-degree-
of-freedom hinges and isotropic interacting hinges. Events are
now implemented for the following nonlinear models: all
frame hinges; layered shells with directional or coupled
nonlinear behavior; and links with multilinear plasticity, gap,
hook, friction pendulum, and triple pendulum behavior. Event-
to-event functionality has also been enhanced for frame hinges
to better handle cyclic reversals. As a result of these additions,
results for nonlinear static load cases using events may differ
somewhat from previous versions, although the results are
expected to be within the specified convergence tolerance for
most models. Differences may be more pronounced for
sensitive or ill-conditioned models. Differences may be more
pronounced for sensitive or ill-conditioned models. The
purpose of using events is to increase the speed of analysis, but
for certain models and load cases it may have little effect or
even the opposite effect.
LOG - 5
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001
FRAME - GENERAL LOADING
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A three-element frame is subjected to seven load cases with different types of
distributed and/or concentrated loads. The resulting displacements at specified
joints are compared with independent hand calculated results.
Important Note: Only bending deformations are considered in the analysis.

Shear and axial deformations are ignored. In SAP2000 this is achieved by setting
the property modification factor for area to 1,000 and setting the property
modification factor for shear area to 0.
GEOMETRY, PROPERTIES AND LOADING

4' 8'
Material Properties
3 E = 3,600 k/in2
Unit weight = 0.15 k/ft3
Section Properties
6'
2
A = 144 in2
4 2 I = 1,728 in4
3
10'
1
Z
X 1
Load Case 1
Self weight (0.15 k/ft)
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
10 k 17.2 k
1.8 k/ft
54.4 k-ft
Load Case 2 Load Case 3

Global uniform distributed load on frame Global joint force and joint moment at joint 2
element 3, plus concentrated load on joint 4
2 k/ft
/ft
2k
2 k/ft

Uniformly distributed projected load on Uniform distributed load on frame elements 1
frame element 2 and 2 in frame local direction
15 k
0 .3
74
4k
/ft
4'
0.3744 k/ft
0.9984 k/ft
Trapezoidal load on frame elements 1 Concentrated load on frame element 2 in
and 2 in frame local direction frame local direction
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
TECHNICAL FEATURES OF SAP2000 TESTED

Calculation and application of
Self load
Projected, uniformly distributed load
Application of
Uniformly distributed load in global coordinates
Uniformly distributed load in frame object local coordinates
Trapezoidal and triangular distributed loads on frames
Joint moments and forces
Static analysis of frames under all of these loading types
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated using the unit load method described on
page 244 in Cook and Young 1985.
Load Output Percent

Case Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
1 Uz (jt. 3) (in) -0.02639 -0. 02639 0%
2 Uz (jt. 3) (in) 0.06296 0. 06296 0%
3 Uz (jt. 3) (in) 0.06296 0. 06296 0%
4 Uz (jt. 3) (in) -0.29630 -0. 29630 0%
5 Ux (jt. 2) (in) 0.31250 0. 31250 0%
6 Ux (jt. 2) (in) 0.11556 0. 11556 0%
7 Ux (jt. 2) (in) 0.00651 0.00651 0%
COMPUTER FILE: Example 1-001
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an exact comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 5
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 6
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 7
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 8
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 9
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 10
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 11
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 12
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 13
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 14
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 15
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 16
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 17
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-001 - 18
REVISION NO.: 6
EXAMPLE 1-002
FRAME - TEMPERATURE LOADING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The various types of frame temperature loads that can be modeled in SAP2000
are tested in this example using a cantilever beam and a propped cantilever beam.
The beam is a 2 inch wide by inch deep rectangular section.
In SAP2000, three types of temperature loads can be applied on a frame element:

an overall change in temperature; a temperature variation along the element
length in the local 1 direction; and a temperature gradient perpendicular to the
element length (local 2 or 3 directions).
For this example, each of these types of temperature loads is applied separately
to both the cantilever beam and the propped cantilever beam. The free-end
displacements in the cantilever beam model and the end reaction in the propped
cantilever beam model are compared to independent hand calculated results.
Important Note: Shear deformations are ignored in this analysis. In SAP2000

this is achieved by setting the property modification factor for shear to 0.
10" 2
Material Properties
C
Z E = 29,000 k/in2
3 = 0.0000065 /F
3"
Model A
X C Section Properties
2"
C A = 6 in2
I = 4.5 in4
Section C-C
C Model B
Temperature Loads
Load Case 1: Increase of 20 F
Load Case 2: Variation along local 1-axis (X-axis) of 2 F per inch of element length (20 F in all)
Load Case 3: Gradient along 2-axis (bending about 3-axis) of 20 F per linear inch (60 F in 3 of
section height)
EXAMPLE 1-002 - 1
REVISION NO.: 6

The specification of
Joint patterns
The application of
Temperature increase
Transverse temperature gradient
The calculation of
Displacements in free expansion
Reaction forces in restrained cases caused by temperature loads
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results for load cases 1 and 2 are hand calculated using standard
thermal expansion formulas. Results for load case 3 in Model B are hand
calculated using Table 3 items 6a and 6c on page 107 in Roark and Young 1975.
Model A: Free-End Cantilever
Load Output Percent

1 Ux (free end) (in) 0.00130 0.00130 0%
2 Ux (free end) (in) 0.00065 0.00065 0%
3 Uz (free end) (in) -0.00650 -0.00650 0%
Model B: Propped Cantilever
Load Output Percent

1 Fx (at prop) (kips) -22.62 -22.62 0%
2 Fx (at prop) (kips) -11.31 -11.31 0%
3 Fz (at prop) (kips) 2.545 2.545 0%
EXAMPLE 1-002 - 2
REVISION NO.: 6
COMPUTER FILE: Example 1-002a, Example 1-002b
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results and the independent results match exactly.
EXAMPLE 1-002 - 3
REVISION NO.: 6
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-002 - 4
REVISION NO.: 6
EXAMPLE 1-002 - 5
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-003
FRAME - DISTRIBUTED AND CONCENTRATED MOMENTS
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example tests distributed and concentrated moments assigned to frame
objects, by applying torsional moments on a shaft. In SAP2000, you can apply
distributed (uniform, trapezoidal and triangular) and concentrated moments to
frame objects.
In this example a 1-inch-diameter circular shaft, fixed at one end, is loaded with
various types of torsional moments in two different load cases. The resulting
torsional reaction at the fixed end and the rotation at two joints along the shaft
are compared with independent, hand calculated results.
10"
5" 2" 1" 2"
Z Material Properties Section Properties
1 2 3 4
E = 28,990 k/in2 J = 0.09817 in4
1 2 3 4 5 v = 0.3
Geometry
X G = 11,150
1 k-in/in
2 k-in Load Cases
Load Case 1: 1 k-in/in uniform distributed
Load Case 1 torsion on frame element 2 and 2 k-in torsion
on the joint 4 end of frame object 3
1.5 k-in/in Load Case 2: Triangular distributed torsion with
2 k-in a maximum value of 1.5 k-in/in on frame
element 1 and 2 k-in torsion on the joint 5
Load Case 2 end of frame object 4
EXAMPLE 1-003 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0

The application of
Distributed moments (uniform, trapezoidal, triangular) to frame objects
Concentrated moments to frame objects
RESULTS COMPARISON
The independent results are based on hand calculations using equation 8.1.3 on
Load Output Percent

Case Parameters SAP2000 Independent Difference
Mx(jt. 1) k-in -4.0 -4.0 0%
1 Rx (jt. 3) rad. 0.02375 0. 02375 0%
Rx (jt. 5) rad. 0.02558 0. 02558 0%
Mx(jt. 1) k-in -5.75 -5.75 0%
2 Rx (jt. 3) rad. 0.02421 0. 02421 0%
Rx (jt.5) rad. 0.02969 0. 02969 0%
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an exact match with the independent solution.
EXAMPLE 1-003 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-003 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-003 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-004
FRAME - ROTATED LOCAL AXES
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example tests SAP2000 for various types of loading on a frame element
with its local 2 and 3 axes not parallel to the global axes. A W12X106 cantilever
beam is used with the local 2 axis rotated 30 degrees from the global Z axis as
shown in the figure below. The free end displacements in the global Y and Z
directions are compared with independent hand calculations. The W12X106
section properties are read from the SECTIONS8.pro section database provided
with SAP2000.
Important Note: Only bending deformations are considered in the analysis. In

SAP2000 shear deformations are ignored by setting the property modification
factor for the shear area to zero.
30
144"
Material Properties
C Z
2 E = 29,000 k/in2
Geometry Y
C Section Properties
3 W12X106
0.01 k/in
Z I33 = 933 in4
Section C-C
I22 = 301 in4
Load Case 1 Load Cases
Y
X 1 kip Load Case 1: 0.01 kip/in uniform distributed load
in global Z direction
Load Case 2: 1 kip concentrated load at free end
in global Z direction
Load Case 2
Load Case 3: 240 k-in concentrated moment at
240 k-in free end about global Z axis
Load Case 3
EXAMPLE 1-004 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0

Frame local axes rotated from global axes
Use of AISC sections
RESULTS COMPARISON
The independent results are calculated using the beam deflection formulas in
Table 3 item 1a and Table 3 item 2a on pages 96 and 98, respectively, in Table 3
in Roark and Young 1975.
Load Output Percent

Uy (free end) in -0.01806 -0.01806 0%

1
Uz (free end) in -0.03029 -0.03029 0%
Uy (free end) in -0.03345 -0.03345 0%

2
Uz (free end) in -0. 05610 -0. 05610 0%
Uy (free end) in -0.08361 -0.08361 0%

3
Uz (free end) in -0.14024 -0.14024 0%
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an exact match with the independent solution.
EXAMPLE 1-004 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-004 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-004 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-004 - 5
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-005
FRAME - DISPLACEMENT LOADING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Using a portal frame, this example verifies SAP2000 for settlement and rotation
of normal supports, skewed supports (settlement only) and spring supports. Note
that for spring supports, the grounded end of the spring is displaced or rotated.
Six different models are created. The models are identical, except for the loading
and the support condition at joint 4 as shown in the figure below. The results for
various support reactions in each model are compared with independent hand
calculations.

GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES
144"
Material Properties
2 3 E = 29,000 k/in2
2
Section Properties
b = 12 in
144"
1 3 d = 12 in
Z A = 144 in2
Y I = 1,728 in4
X 1 4
Support condition at joint 4
varies for each model
EXAMPLE 1-005 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
SUPPORT CONDITION AT JOINT 4 AND LOADING
Uz = -0.5"
0.01 rad
Uz = -0.2"
Model A Model B Model C
10 k
Joint local
axes for
skewed
U3
0.01 rad 3
supports 1
= -1
"
cos = 0.8
sin = 0.6
Model D Model E Model F
Model Support Condition at Joint 4 Loading
A Roller -0.5" Z displacement at joint 4
Z direction translational spring,

B -0.2" Z displacement at joint 4
k = 10 kip/in
C Roller 0.01 radian rotation about joint 1
Rotational spring about Y axis,

D 0.01 radian rotation about joint 4
k = 80,000 kip-in/rad
10 kip Z direction force at

E Skewed roller
midpoint of frame element 2
-1" joint local 3 direction

F Skewed roller
displacement at joint 4
EXAMPLE 1-005 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0

Settlement of support in frame structures
Rotation of support in frame structures
Settlement of support with linear (translational) spring
Rotation of support with rotational spring
Skewed supports
Skewed support settlement
RESULTS COMPARISON
Output Percent
Model Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Fz (jt. 1) kip 6.293 6.293 0%

A. Support
Settlement
My (jt. 1) kip-in -906.250 -906.250 0%
B. Spring Fz (jt. 1) kip 1.115 1.115 0%

Support
Settlement My (jt. 1) kip-in -160.492 -160.492 0%
Fz (jt. 1) kip -18.125 -18.125 0%

C. Support
Rotation
My (jt. 1) kip-in 2,610.000 2,610.000 0%
D. Spring My (jt. 1 ) kip -473.469 -473.469 0%

Support
Rotation Ry (jt. 4) rad. 0.00408 0.00408 0%
Fz (jt. 1) kip 5.811 5.811 0%

E. Skewed
Support
F3 (jt. 4) kip 5.236 5.236 0%
F. Skewed Fz (jt. 1) kip 27.215 27.215 0%

Support
Settlement My (jt. 1) kip-in -3,918.919 -3,918.919 0%
EXAMPLE 1-005 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPUTER FILES: Example 1-005a, Example 1-005b, Example 1-005c, Example 1-005d,
Example 1-005e, Example 1-005f
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an exact match with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 1-005 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-005 - 5
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-005 - 6
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-005 - 7
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-005 - 8
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-005 - 9
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-005 - 10
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-005 - 11
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006
FRAME - NON-PRISMATIC SECTIONS AND AUTOMATIC FRAME SUBDIVISION
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example tests the SAP2000 non-prismatic frame section property. In
SAP2000 the axial (A), torsion (J), weight, and mass properties can vary linearly,
and the bending property (I) variation can be linear, parabolic or cubic. The
variation of the moment of inertia is defined in SAP2000 as follows:
L
where,
n

I ( x) = (I11/ n ) 1 +
x
(I ) Lx
1/ n
n = 1 for linear variation,
I1 I2 2 n = 2 for parabolic variation, and
L
n = 3 for cubic variation,
x
The example model consists of a complex, non-prismatic frame section that is

made up of four segments, assigned to a cantilever beam, and subjected to seven
load cases, each with a different type of loading. An applicable deformation
component at the free end of the cantilever is compared with independent hand
calculated results for each load case.
Important Note: Only bending and axial deformations are considered in the
analysis. Shear deformations are ignored. In SAP2000 this is achieved by setting
the property modification factor for shear area to 0.
This example also tests the frame automatic subdivide feature of SAP2000. The
automatic frame subdivide option internally divides the frame object into a user-
specified number of elements for the analysis. The analysis results are combined
and reported for the entire frame object, not the subdivided elements.
In this example two models are run. Model A has no automatic subdivision.
Model B has automatic subdivision that divides the frame object up into 10 equal
length elements. The results are compared for each model.
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
144"
36" 36" 36" 36" Material Properties
E = 3,600 k/in2
= 0.2
Seg. 1 Seg. 2 Seg. 3 Seg. 4 G = 1,500 k/in2
Z
FSec 2
FSec 3
FSec 2
FSec 4
FSec 3
FSec 1
FSec 1
FSec 2
Segment Definitions
Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4
Start Section FSec4 FSec2 FSec3 FSec1
End Section FSec3 FSec2 FSec1 FSec2
Length, in 36 36 36 36
Axial (A) Variation Linear Constant Linear Linear
Bending (I33) Variation Linear Constant Parabolic Cubic
Bending (I22) Variation Linear Constant Parabolic Cubic
Torsion (J) Variation Linear Constant Linear Linear
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
Section Properties
FSec1 FSec2 FSec3 FSec4
Width b, in 12 12 12 12
Depth d, in 12 18 24 30
Area A, in2 144 216 288 360
Bending I33, in4 1728 5832 13824 27000
Bending I22, in4 1728 2592 3456 4320
Torsion J, in4 2,920.32 6,085.12 9,492.12 12,934.73
Loading
Load Case Load Type Value
1 Self weight Not Applicable
2 Fx at free end (axial) 500 k
3 Fy at free end 5k
4 Fz at free end -5 k
5 Mx at free end (torsion) 5,000 k-in
6 My at free end 5,000 k-in
7 Mz at free end 5,000 k-in
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0

Structural behavior of a non-prismatic frame section
Self weight calculations
Linear variation of section area
Linear, parabolic and cubic variation of moment of inertia
Linear variation of section torsional constant
RESULTS COMPARISON
Results for Model A (With No Automatic Subdivision)
Load Output Percent

1 My (fixed end)k-in -184.950 -184.950 0%
2 Ux (free end) in 0.09087 0.09087 0%
3 Uy (free end) in 0.43120 0.43120 0%
4 Uz (free end) in -0.14335 -0.14335 0%
5 Rx (free end) rad 0.07987 0.07987 0%
6 Ry (free end) rad 0.03742 0.03742 0%
7 Rz (free end) rad 0.07634 0.07634 0%
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
Results for Model B (With Automatic Subdivision into Ten Elements)
Load Output Percent

1 My (fixed end)k-in -184.950 -184.950 0%
2 Ux (free end) in 0.09087 0.09087 0%
3 Uy (free end) in 0.43120 0.43120 0%
4 Uz (free end) in -0.14335 -0.14335 0%
5 Rx (free end) rad 0.07987 0.07987 0%
6 Ry (free end) rad 0.03742 0.03742 0%
7 Rz (free end) rad 0.07634 0.07634 0%
COMPUTER FILE: Example 1-006a, Example 1-006b
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an exact match with the independent results for both
models A and B.
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 5
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 6
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 7
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 8
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 9
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 10
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 11
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 12
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 13
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 14
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 15
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 16
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 17
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-006 - 18
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-007
FRAME - END RELEASES
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object end releases are verified in this example.
Three models are used in the example. The models are identical, except for the
end releases. Model A has a shear release, model B has an axial release and
model C has a moment release.
SAP2000 results for the axial force and moment at the fixed support are
compared with independent hand calculated results. Note that the models with
releases are statically determinate and thus the independent results are obtained
using basic statics.
GEOMETRY AND LOADING
10 k 10 k 10 k
5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5'
Z
Y Shear (Vz) Axial (Pz) Moment (My)
10'
10'
10'
release release release

X
Model A Model B Model C

The end releases in a frame element, including
Axial release
Shear release
Bending release
The related frame static analysis
EXAMPLE 1-007 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
The models are all statically determinate and thus the independent results are
obtained using basic statics.
Percent
Model Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Fz (fixed support) k 0 0 0%
A
My (fixed support) k-ft 50 50 0%
B
C
COMPUTER FILES: Example 1-007a, Example 1-007b, Example 1-007c
CONCLUSION
EXAMPLE 1-007 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-007 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-008
FRAME PARTIAL FIXITY END RELEASES
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object partial fixity end releases are tested in this example.
In the example a cantilever beam is subjected to a uniform load equal to twice its
self weight. At the fixed end of the cantilever the frame object is assigned a
partial fixity moment (My) spring and a partial fixity shear (Vz) spring. The
vertical tip deflection of the cantilever is compared with independent hand
calculated results.
Important Note: Both bending and shear deformations are considered in the
analysis for this example.
Important Note: The uniform load is applied using the gravity load feature of
SAP2000.

24' Material Properties
E = 4,320 k/in2
Uniform load = 2 * beam self weight = 0.2
G = 1,800 k/in2
Partial fixity for moment and shear Section Properties

Z Moment spring stiffness: 3,888,000 k-in/rad b = 18 in
Shear spring stiffness: 540 k/in d = 30 in
A = 540 in2
Y
X I = 40,500 in4
Av = 450 in2 (shear area)

The partial fixity end releases in a frame element, including
Shear partial fixity
Bending partial fixity
The application of gravity load to a frame object
EXAMPLE 1-008 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Percent
Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Uz (cantilever tip) in -0.8036 -0.8036 0%
CONCLUSION
EXAMPLE 1-008 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-008 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-008 - 4
REVISION NO.: 7
EXAMPLE 1-009
FRAME PRESTRESS APPLIED TO FRAME OBJECTS
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The SAP2000 prestress applied to frame objects is verified in this example using
a simply supported concrete beam with a parabolic prestressing tendon profile
and different eccentricities at each end. The bending moment and deflection at
the beam center are compared with independent hand-calculated results.
SAP2000 has two options for modeling the effect of the prestress. One option
models the prestress as loads applied to the structure. The other models the
prestress tendon as internal tendon elements. Both options are verified in this
example.
In SAP2000 the beam is modeled using a single frame element that is internally
meshed into two elements so that there is a node at the beam midpoint where the
displacement values are to be calculated.
Three separate models are used in this analysis. Model A has the prestress
modeled as loads. Models B and C treat the prestress as elements. Model B has a
maximum prestress tendon discretization length of 60 inches and Model C
reduces the maximum prestress tendon discretization length to 12 inches.
The effect of both wobble and curvature friction losses are included in the
example as well as elastic shortening of the concrete beam. The tendon is
stressed from the left end only.
Important Note: Shear deformations are included in this example.
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 1
REVISION NO.: 7
GEOMETRY AND LOADING
T=220 k Beam neutral axis Prestressing tendon 18"

CL A
3"
10"
30"
A
Section A-A
10"
30' = 360"
Material Properties Section Properties Prestress Properties

E = 3600 k/in2 b = 18 in A = 1.5 in2
= 0.2 d = 30 in E = 29000 k/in2
G = 1500 k/in2 A = 540 in2 = 0.3
I = 40,500 in4
Prestressing Tendon Notes
1. T is the component of the tension force in the prestressing tendon before losses.
2. The tendon is tensioned from the left end only.
3. The cable drapes at the left end, center and right end of the beam are illustrated in the figure.
4. The cable profile is parabolic.
5. The friction loss coefficient for curvature is 0.15.
6. The friction loss coefficient for wobble is 0.0001 / in.
7. Consider losses due to friction and beam elastic shortening.

Prestress tendon with parabolic tendon profile and different eccentricities at
the two ends
Prestress tendon modeled using loads
Prestress tendon modeled as elements
Prestress losses
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 2
REVISION NO.: 7
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated using basic principles and using the unit
load method described on page 244 in Cook and Young 1985.
Important Note: A simplifying assumption is made in the hand calculations that

the distributed load the prestress imposes on the beam is uniform. Thus the
SAP2000 and hand-calculated results are not expected to match exactly.
Output Percent
A- By Loads 0.17028 +2.8%
Uz
B- Elems (60") (center) 0.16041 0.16564 -3.2%
in
C- Elems (12") 0.16484 -0.5%
A- By Loads -2061.5 +2.9%

My
B- Elems (60") (center) -2013.9 -2004.3 +0.5%
kip-in
C- Elems (12") -2001.7 -0.1%
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results and the independent results show an acceptable match.
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 3
REVISION NO.: 7
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 4
REVISION NO.: 7
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 5
REVISION NO.: 7
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 6
REVISION NO.: 7
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 7
REVISION NO.: 7
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 8
REVISION NO.: 7
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 9
REVISION NO.: 7
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 10
REVISION NO.: 7
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 11
REVISION NO.: 7
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 12
REVISION NO.: 7
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 13
REVISION NO.: 7
EXAMPLE 1-009 - 14
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-010
FRAME - END OFFSETS
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example uses a cantilever beam to test the SAP2000 end offsets. In
SAP2000, end offsets may be non-rigid, partially rigid, or fully rigid. The rigidity
of the offset is specified by a rigid zone factor. This factor specifies the fraction
of the end offset length, measured from the frame element end, that is assumed to
be infinitely rigid. The remainder of the end offset, if any, is assumed to have the
same flexibility as the beam.
Four models are created in this example. The first has no end offset, the second
through fourth have an end offset with 0%, 50% and 100% rigidity, respectively.
For each model the vertical displacement at the free end of the cantilever is
compared with independent hand calculated results.
Important Note: Bending and shear deformations are included in the analyses
for this example.
12' 10k 12" Material Properties

a C E = 4,320 k/in2
= 0.2
Z
18"
G = 1,800 k/in2
End offset Section Properties
Y C Section C-C
X b = 12 in
d = 18 in
End Offsets A = 216 in2
Model A: a = 0, no end offset I = 5,832 in4
Model B: a = 6" end offset, 0% rigid Av = 180 in2 (shear area)
Model C: a = 6" end offset, 50% rigid
Model D: a = 6" end offset, 100% rigid
EXAMPLE 1-010 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0

The use of end offsets in frames, including
Non-rigid offsets
Partially rigid offsets
Fully rigid offsets
The effect of end offsets on the frame static analysis results
RESULTS COMPARISON
Rigid
Zone Output Percent
Model Factor Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
A N.A. Uz (free end) in -0.39951 -0.39951 0%
B 0.0 Uz (free end) in -0.39951 -0.39951 0%
C 0.5 Uz (free end) in -0.37523 -0.37523 0%
D 1.0 Uz (free end) in -0.35197 -0.35197 0%
COMPUTER FILE: Example 1-010a, Example 1-010b, Example 1-010c, Example 1-010d
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results match exactly with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 1-010 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-010 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-011
FRAME INSERTION POINT
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example uses a cantilever beam to test the SAP2000 frame insertion point.
In SAP2000 the frame insertion point is defined by a combination of a cardinal
point and joint offsets.
This example uses a 12 inch wide by 18 inch deep section. The cardinal point is
specified to be at the bottom left corner of the section (cardinal point location 1)
and global Z direction joint offsets of +12 inches are specified at each end of the
beam.
Two load cases are considered. The first load case has a 10 kip compressive load
applied to the joint at the free end of the cantilever. The second load case applies
the 10 kip compressive load to the free end of the frame object (not the joint).
The fixed end moments and the maximum beam moments are compared with
independent hand calculated results for the two load cases.
10' Section Dimensions 2
Joint offset Uz = +12"

6" 6"
A B b = 12 in
d = 18 in Section centroid
Z
9"
1 2 3
Cardinal point 1
9"
A 2 at bottom left
Y
X corner
12"
1
3
Joint 2
As Modeled in SAP2000
Section B-B
(Section A-A similar, opposite hand)
EXAMPLE 1-011 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
ANALYSIS MODEL WITH LOADING
Rigid Frame Rigid 2

link C object D link
Joint offset Uz = +12"

6" 6"
P = 10 k
Section centroid
1 2
3
9"
C As modeled D
frame object location
9"
Rigid link
shown dashed
12"
Analysis Model Load Case 1
Joint 2
Rigid Frame
link C object D Section D-D
P = 10 k
(Section C-C similar, opposite hand)
1 2 Rigid
C As modeled D link
frame object location
shown dashed
Analysis Model Load Case 2

Frame cardinal point
Joint offsets
EXAMPLE 1-011 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated using statics.
Load Output Percent

My (fixed end) k-in 0 0 0%
Mz (fixed end) k-in 0 0 0%

1
M3 (beam max) k-in -210 -210 0%
M2 (beam max) k-in -60 -60 0%
My (fixed end) k-in 210 210 0%
Mz (fixed end) k-in 60 60 0%

2
M3 (beam max) k-in 0 0 0%
M2 (beam max) k-in 0 0 0%
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results match exactly with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 1-011 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-011 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-012
FRAME NO TENSION AND NO COMPRESSION FRAME OBJECTS
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example uses a one-bay, one-story braced frame resisting a horizontal load
applied at the top of the frame to test the SAP2000 tension and compression
limits for frame objects. In SAP2000 both tension and compression limits can be
specified for frame objects. If the tension limit for a frame object is specified as
0, then the frame object can resist no tension. Similarly, if the compression limit
is specified as 0 then the frame object can resist no compression.
Important Note: Typically, the tension and compression limits only apply for
nonlinear analyses.
Three models are created for the example. Model A has no tension or
compression limits and is run as a static linear analysis. Model B allows no
compression in the compression diagonal and model C allows no tension in the
tension diagonal. Models B and C are run as static nonlinear analyses. The
horizontal displacement at the top of the frame and the support reactions for each
model are compared with independent hand calculated results.
Important Note: The beam and braces have pinned ends in the example.
120" Properties
100 k 3 E = 30,000 k/in2
2 4 A = 8 in2
Notes
1 2
120"
1. Frame objects 3, 4 and 5 have pinned ends

4 5
2. Braces are not connected at their intersection
Z 1 3
Tension/Compression Limits
Y Model A: None (Linear static analysis)
X Model B: No compression in frame object 5 (Nonlinear static analysis)
Model C: No tension in frame object 4 (Nonlinear static analysis)
EXAMPLE 1-012 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0

Tension and compression limits for frame objects
End releases
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated using a combination of the unit load
method described on page 244 in Cook and Young 1985 and statics.
Output Percent
Ux (jt 2) in 0.10677 0.10677 0%
Fx (jt 1) kip -44.224 -44.224 0%
A Fz (jt 1) kip -100 -100 0%
Fx (jt 3) kip -55.776 -55.776 0%
Fz (jt 3) kip 100 100 0%
Ux (jt 2) in 0.24142 0.24142 0%
Fx (jt 1) kip -100 -100 0%
B Fz (jt 1) kip -100 -100 0%
Fx (jt 3) kip 0 0 0%
Fz (jt 3) kip 100 100 0%
Ux (jt 2) in 0.19142 0.19142 0%
Fx (jt 1) kip 0 0 0%
C Fz (jt 1) kip -100 -100 0%
Fx (jt 3) kip -100 -100 0%
Fz (jt 3) kip 100 100 0%
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results match exactly with the independent results
EXAMPLE 1-012 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-012 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-012 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-012 - 5
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-012 - 6
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-012 - 7
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-013
FRAME SIMPLY SUPPORTED BEAM ON ELASTIC FOUNDATION
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example uses a simply supported beam on elastic foundation to test the
SAP2000 frame line spring assignment. The beam is 36 inches wide by 36 inches
deep, 15 feet long and the soil subgrade modulus is 800 k/ft3. A 500 kip vertical
load is applied at the center of the beam and the self weight of the beam is
ignored. The moment and deflection at the center of the beam are compared with
independent results calculated using formulas presented in Timoshenko 1956.
The model is made up of two frame objects each 7.5 feet long. Three separate
models are created. The models are identical, except for the discretization of the
two frame objects. Models A, B and C discretize each frame object into 1, 4 and
100 frame elements respectively.

P = 500 k Beam Material Properties Beam Section Properties

7.5' 7.5' E = 3,600 k/in2 b = 36 in
d = 36 in
Z Soil Properties I = 139,968 in4
k = Modulus of foundation
Y = Beam width * subgrade modulus
Soil spring stiffness = k
X = 3 ft * 800 k/ft3
=2,400 k/ft2

Frame line spring assignments
Static analysis of beam on elastic foundation
EXAMPLE 1-013 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated using formulas presented in Problem 3
on page 23 of Timoshenko 1956.
# Output Percent
Model Elms. Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Uz (jt 2) in -0.08854 -0.08933 -0.88%

A 1
My (jt 2) k-in 16,524 17,698 -8.16%
Uz (jt 2) in -0.08933 -0.08933 0%

B 4
My (jt 2) k-in 17,634 17,698 -0.36%
Uz (jt 2) in -0.08933 -0.08933 0%

C 100
My (jt 2) k-in 17,698 17,698 0%
CONCLUSION
As long as the beam discretization is sufficient, the SAP2000 results match
exactly with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 1-013 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-013 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-013 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-014
FRAME - EIGENVALUE PROBLEM
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The SAP2000 eigenvalue computations are verified using vibrations of a
cantilever beam.
This example uses several models of an eight foot long cantilever concrete beam
with I22 I33. Each of the models has a different discretization. The first five
bending Eigen modes for each model are compared with the independent solution
provided in Clough and Penzien 1975.
Important Note: Only bending modes are calculated and compared. Shear
deformations are ignored by setting the frame property modification factor for
shear area to zero. Axial and torsional modes are excluded by excluding the Ux
and Rx degrees of freedom from the analysis.
Discretization
Model A: 1 element 96 inches long
Model B: 2 elements each 48 inches long
Model C: 4 elements each 24 inches long
Model D: 6 elements each 16 inches long
Model E: 8 elements each 12 inch long
Model F: 10 elements each 9.6 inches long
Z Model G: 96 elements each 1 inch long
96"
Y
X
Material Properties Section Properties
E = 3,600 k/in2 b = 12 in
Mass per unit volume = 2.3E-07 k-sec2/in4 d = 18 in
A = 216 in2
I about global Y = 5,832 in4
I about global Z = 2,592 in4
EXAMPLE 1-014 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0

Eigenvalue analysis of a frame with unequal moment of inertia values (I22
I33) for bending modes
RESULTS COMPARISON
The independent results are calculated based on formulas presented on page 313
in Clough and Penzien 1975 for a cantilever beam with uniformly distributed
mass and constant EI.
Output Percent
Mode Parameter Model SAP2000 Independent Difference
A (1 elem) 0.054547 +43.53%
1
B (2 elems) 0.042333 +11.39%
C (4 elems) 0.039090 +2.85%

First
mode Period, sec D (6 elems) 0.038485 0.038005 +1.26%
for
bending E (8 elems) 0.038273 +0.71%
about
the F (10 elems) 0.038175 +0.45%
Z-axis
G (96 elems) 0.038003 -0.01%
A (1 elem) 0.036364 +43.52%

2
B (2 elems) 0.028222 +11.39%
C (4 elems) 0.026060 +2.85%

First
for
bending E (8 elems) 0.025516 +0.71%
about
the F (10 elems) 0.025450 +0.45%
Y-axis
G (96 elems) 0.025335 -0.01%
EXAMPLE 1-014 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
Output Percent
Mode Parameter Model SAP2000 Independent Difference
A (1 elem) N.A. N.A.
3
B (2 elems) 0.008218 +35.52%
C (4 elems) 0.006651 +9.68%

Second
for
bending E (8 elems) 0.006214 +2.47%
about
the F (10 elems) 0.006160 +1.58%
Z-axis
G (96 elems) 0.006065 +0.02%

4
B (2 elems) 0.005479 +35.52%
C (4 elems) 0.004434 +9.67%

Second
for
bending E (8 elems) 0.004143 +2.47%
about
the F (10 elems) 0.004107 +1.58%
Y-axis
G (96 elems) 0.004043 0%

5
B (2 elems) N.A. N.A.
C (4 elems) 0.002511 +15.98%

Third
for
bending E (8 elems) 0.002254 +4.11%
about
the F (10 elems) 0.002222 +2.63%
Z-axis
G (96 elems) 0.002166 +0.05%
EXAMPLE 1-014 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
Note that the SAP2000 results for models A, B, C, D, E, F and G are for lumped
mass analyses, with masses lumped 96 inches, 48 inches, 24 inches, 16 inches,
12 inches, 9.6 inches and 1 inch apart, respectively, whereas the independent
solution is derived for a uniformly distributed mass.
Example 1-014e, Example 1-014f, Example 1-014g
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an acceptable match with the independent solution as
long as the discretization of the beam is sufficient for the lumped mass analysis
to approximate the uniform mass distribution. In this example, the cantilever
beam needs to be discretized into a number of elements equal to at least three
times the vibration mode considered to obtain acceptable comparison with the
independent results. For example, when considering a second mode of vibration
(SAP2000 mode numbers 3 and 4 in this example), the beam needs to be
discretized into at least 2 * 3 = 6 elements.
EXAMPLE 1-014 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-014 - 5
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-014 - 6
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-015
FRAME - STEADY STATE HARMONIC LOADS
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
Steady state and periodic time history analysis are verified in this example using
a fixed-end beam that is subjected to a uniformly distributed load varying
harmonically with respect to time. The maximum midpoint deflections from the
SAP2000 analyses are compared with independent results published in Paz 1985.
The example is solved using two different calculation methods. They are
undamped steady state analysis; and periodic time history analysis. For the
steady state analysis, the frequency of the forcing function is used as input into
SAP2000. For the time-history analysis, one complete cycle of the sine wave
loading function, discretized at 100 equal intervals, is used as input, and, for
consistency with Paz 1985, five modes are used in the time history analysis.
The fixed end beam is modeled with two objects so that there is a midpoint node
where displacements are reported. Each of the objects is internally meshed in
SAP2000 into 120 elements each one inch long. Because the line mass in the
SAP2000 analysis is lumped at the nodes, this discretization of the beam
provides a good approximation of the uniform mass assumed in the example.
Important Note: Only bending deformations are considered in this analysis.

Shear deformations are ignored by setting the frame property modification factor
for shear area to zero. Axial and torsional modes are excluded by excluding the
Ux and Rx degrees of freedom from the analysis.
GEOMETRY , PROPERTIES AND LOADING

Material Properties
Z 200sin(300t) E = 3,000,000 lb/in2
Mass per unit length = 0.1 lb-sec2/in2
1 2 3 Section Properties
X b = 12 in
120" 120"
d = 10 in
240" I = 1,000 in4
EXAMPLE 1-015 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0

Steady state analysis of frame systems
Time history analysis of frame systems with periodic loading
Line mass assignment to frame objects
RESULTS COMPARISON
The independent results are taken from Illustrative Example 20.2 on page 434 in
Paz 1985. The independent results are calculated using the first five mode
shapes.
Output Percent
Load Case Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
SS1
Undamped Uz (jt 2) in 0.0544 0.0541 +0.55%
steady state
MHIST1
Periodic time
Uz (jt 2) in 0.0544 0.0541 +0.55%
history using
5 modes
CONCLUSIONS
Comparison of the SAP2000 results with the independent results is acceptable.
The small difference between the SAP2000 results and the independent results
appears to be caused by round off in the independent solution.
EXAMPLE 1-015 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-015 - 3
REVISION NO.: 1
EXAMPLE 1-016
FRAME - TENSION STIFFENING USING P-DELTA ANALYSIS
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The SAP2000 tension stiffening calculation using P-Delta analysis is verified in
this example using a tie rod (beam) with a large axial force.
In this example a simply supported, 3-inch-square, steel beam has a large axial
force and a small transverse uniform load. The deflection in the direction of the
transverse load (global Z direction) is reduced because of the stiffening effect of
the tension force. The values of the midpoint deflection and bending moment
with and without tension stiffening are calculated and compared with
independent results derived using formulas presented in Timoshenko 1956.
Two different methods are used to apply the tension stiffening. In one method, a
P-Delta force equal to the specified tension is assigned directly to the beam. The
beam is then analyzed in a linear static load case with the transverse loading
applied. In the second method, the tension is applied to the beam in a nonlinear
static load case that is specified to consider P-Delta effects. The beam is then
analyzed in a separate linear static load case with the transverse loading applied.
This second load case is specified to use the stiffness at the end of the static
nonlinear case.
The beam is modeled with two objects so that there is a midpoint node where
displacements are reported. Several models are created using different
discretizations of the frame objects
Important Note: Shear deformations are ignored in the analysis by setting the
frame property modification factor for shear area to zero.

Z 0.002 k/in Material Properties
Y 1 2 3 20.25 k E = 30,000 k/in2
X Section Properties
150" 150" b = 3 in
300" d = 3 in
I = 6.75 in4
EXAMPLE 1-016 - 1
REVISION NO.: 1

P-Delta force assignment to frame objects
Nonlinear static analysis using the P-Delta option
RESULTS COMPARISON
The independent results are calculated using equations 43 and 45 on page 43 of
Timoshenko 1956 along with equation 23 on page 28 of the same reference.
Without Tension Stiffening
# Output Percent
Model Elm Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Uz (midpt) in -1.04167 -1.04167 0%

A 1
My (midpt) k-in 22.500 22.500 0%
With Tension Stiffening - Using P-Delta Force Method
# Output Percent
Uz (midpt) in -0.54555 -0.54330 +0.41%

B 1
My (midpt) k-in 11.453 11.498 -0.39%
Uz (midpt) in -0.54343 -0.54330 +0.02%

C 2
My (midpt) k-in 11.495 11.498 -0.03%
Uz (midpt) in -0.54330 -0.54330 0%

D 16
My (midpt) k-in 11.498 11.498 0%
EXAMPLE 1-016 - 2
REVISION NO.: 1
With Tension Stiffening - Using Nonlinear Static Load Case with

P-Delta Option Activated
# Output Percent
Uz (midpt) in -0.54555 -0.54330 +0.41%

E 1
My (midpt) k-in 11.453 11.498 -0.39%
Uz (midpt) in -0.54343 -0.54330 +0.02%

F 2
My (midpt) k-in 11.495 11.498 -0.03%
Uz (midpt) in -0.54330 -0.54330 0%

G 16
My (midpt) k-in 11.498 11.498 0%
Example 1-016e, Example 1-016f, Example 1-016g
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an acceptable, or exact, match with the independent
results as long as the discretization of the beam is sufficient. The two analysis
methods give identical results.
In general we recommend that you use the nonlinear static load case method to
solve tension stiffening problems.
EXAMPLE 1-016 - 3
REVISION NO.: 1
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-016 - 4
REVISION NO.: 1
EXAMPLE 1-016 - 5
REVISION NO.: 1
EXAMPLE 1-017
FRAME VIBRATION OF A STRING UNDER TENSION
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A flexible string is attached to two supports and tensioned to 0.5 kips. The first
three modes of the tensioned string are calculated and compared with
independent results derived using formulas presented in Kreyszig 1983.
The string is modeled using a single frame object. Two different models are
created for the comparison. The first has the frame object discretized into 10
elements and the second has it discretized into 100 elements.
The initial tension force is applied in the SAP2000 models through a static
nonlinear analysis that is specified to consider P-Delta effects. The modal
analysis to obtain the frequencies is performed in a second load case. The modal
load case is specified to use the stiffness at the end of the static nonlinear case.
0.5 k Material Properties

E = 30,000 k/in2
Z
Mass per unit volume = 7.324E-7 k-sec2/in4
100"
Section Properties
X 1/16" diameter wire
A = 0.00306796 in
Frame Object Discretization
Model A: 10 frame elements per frame object
Model B: 100 frame elements per frame object

Static nonlinear analysis using the P-Delta option to provide tension stiffening
Modal analysis of frame for eigenvalues
EXAMPLE 1-017 - 1
REVISION NO.: 1
RESULTS COMPARISON
The independent results are calculated using string vibration theory presented on
pages 506 through 510 of Kreyszig 1983.
# Output Percent
f1 Hz 74.579 74.586 -0.01%
A 10 f2 Hz 148.93 149.17 -0.16%
f3 Hz 222.06 223.76 -0.76%
f1 Hz 74.587 74.586 0%
B 100 f2 Hz 149.18 149.17 +0.01%
f3 Hz 223.80 223.76 +0.02%
COMPUTER FILES: Example 1-017a, Example 1-017b
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an acceptable match with the independent results.
Note that the SAP2000 analysis lumps the mass as the element nodes whereas the
independent analysis assumes a uniformly distributed mass. As the discretization
(number of elements) increases the lumped mass distribution approaches the
uniform mass distribution and the SAP2000 results converge to the independent
results.
EXAMPLE 1-017 - 2
REVISION NO.: 1
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-017 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-018
FRAME BENDING, SHEAR AND AXIAL DEFORMATIONS IN A RIGID FRAME
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A one-story, one-bay rigid bent is subjected to a uniform vertical load across the
horizontal member. The resulting vertical displacement at the center of the
horizontal member is compared with independent hand calculated results. The
displacement is calculated in four separate models with bending, shear and axial
deformations combined considered in the first model, bending deformations only
considered in the second model, shear deformations only considered in the third
model and axial deformations only considered in the fourth model.
Important Note: For the models with bending deformations ignored the
SAP2000 property modification factor for moment of inertia is set to 10,000,000.
For the models with shear deformations ignored, the SAP2000 property
modification factor for shear area is set to 0. For the models with axial
deformations ignored, the SAP2000 property modification factor for area is set to
100,000.
0.1 k/in Material Properties Section Properties

E = 29,900 k/in2 W8X31
= 0.3 A = 9.12 in2
Z 2 3 5 4 4 G = 11,500 k/in2 I = 110 in4
Av = 2.28 in2 (shear area)
Y
144"
1 2
X Deformations Considered
1 3
Model A: Bending, shear and axial deformations
Model B: Bending deformations only
144" 144" Model C: Shear deformations only
Model D: Axial deformations only

Calculation of bending, shear and axial deformations in a rigid frame
Frame property modification factors
EXAMPLE 1-018 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Output Percent
A
Bending, shear
-2.77076 -2.77076 0%
and axial
deformations
B
Bending Uz -2.72361 -2.72361 0%
deformations only
(jt. 5)
C (in)
Shear -0.03954 -0.03954 0%
deformations only
D
Axial -0.00760 -0.00760 0%
deformations only
COMPUTER FILES: Example 1-018a, Example 1-018b, Example 1-018c, Example 1-018d
CONCLUSION
EXAMPLE 1-018 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-018 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-018 - 4
REVISION NO.: 1
EXAMPLE 1-019
FRAME BUCKLING OF A RIGID FRAME
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A one-story, one-bay, two-dimensional frame is subjected to an axial force, P, at
the top of each column. The buckling load for this configuration is calculated and
compared with independent results calculated using formulas derived in
Timoshenko and Gere 1961. Several SAP2000 models are used. Each model is
identical, except for the discretization of the three frame objects.
Important Note: Only buckling in the XZ plane is considered. The frame is

assumed to be braced against bucking in the YZ plane. This is achieved by
making only the Ux, Uz and Ry degrees of freedom active in the analysis.

P P Material Properties Section Properties

E = 29,900 k/in2 W8X31
A= 9.12 in2
Z I = 110 in4
14
Y Frame Object Discretization
4"
Model A: 1 frame element per frame object
X
Model B: 2 frame elements per frame object
Model C: 4 frame elements per frame object
144"

Buckling analysis of a rigid frame
EXAMPLE 1-019 - 1
REVISION NO.: 1
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are calculated using formulas presented in Article 2.4 on
pages 62 through 66 in Timoshenko and Gere 1961.
Output Percent
A Buckling
1 element per Load 280.98 280.19 +0.28%
object (kips)
B Buckling
2 elements per Load 280.24 280.19 +0.02%
object (kips)
C Buckling
4 elements per Load 280.19 280.19 0%
object (kips)
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent
results. As the discretization increases the SAP2000 result converges to the
independent result.
EXAMPLE 1-019 - 2
REVISION NO.: 1
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-019 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-020
FRAME - RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS OF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL RIGID FRAME
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A single-bay, two-story, two-dimensional, reinforced concrete frame is analyzed
in this example. The applied loading is a response spectrum using 5% modal
damping. The SRSS modal combination technique is used. The building periods,
lateral displacements and bending moments in the columns and beams are
compared with the independent results presented in Chopra 1995.
Important Note: The analysis in Chopra uses logarithmic linear interpolation,

whereas SAP2000 uses algebraic linear interpolation. Consequently, in the
SAP2000 model the values of ground acceleration corresponding to the time
periods of the structure are explicitly provided.

Important Note: Only the Ux, Uz and Ry degrees of freedom are active in the
SAP2000 model. The building mass is only active in the X-direction; that is,
vertical excitation and out-of-plane excitation of the mass are not considered.

EI EI Properties 5% Damped
3 7 m8 8 6 E =3,000 k/in2 Response Spectrum Function
I = 1,000 in4 Period (sec) Accel (g)
EI
EI
2 4
120"
0 0.5
2EI 2EI Concentrated Masses 0.03 0.5
2 5 2m 7 6 5 2m at joint 7 0.125 1.355
Z m at joint 8 0.5868 1.355
120"
2EI
2EI
1 3 m = 0.5182 kip-sec2/in
Y 0.66 1.355
1 X 4 1.562 0.576
4.12 0.218
240"
10 0.037
Fixed Base Frame
EXAMPLE 1-020 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0

Modal analysis of frame for eigenvalues and time periods
Response spectrum analysis
Joint masses
RESULTS COMPARISON
See example 13.11 on page 521 of Chopra 1995 for the independent results.
Time Periods
Percent
Mode 1 period (sec) 1.562 1.562 0%
Mode 2 period (sec) 0.5868 0.5868 0%
Displacements for Response Spectrum
Percent
Ux (jt. 2) in 7.576 7.566 +0.1%
Ux (jt. 3) in 18.84 18.81 +0.2%
EXAMPLE 1-020 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
Bending Moments (M33) k-in
Percent
Elm. Joint Location SAP2000 Independent Difference
1 12,636 12,624 +0.1%

First story
1
column
2 6,793 6,792 0%
2 6,023 6,024 0%
Second story
2
3 column 5,222 5,220 0%
First story +0.2%
5 2 9,810 9,792
beam
First story +0.2%
6 5 9,810 9,792
beam
Second story 0%
7 3 5,222 5,220
beam
Second story 0%
8 6 5,222 5,220
beam
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show acceptable comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 1-020 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-021
FRAME BATHE AND WILSON EIGENVALUE PROBLEM
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A ten-bay, nine-story, two-dimensional, fixed base frame structure solved in
Bathe and Wilson 1972 is analyzed for the first three eigenvalues. The SAP2000
results are compared with independent results presented in Bathe and Wilson
1981 as well as independent results presented in Peterson 1981.
The material and section properties, and the mass per unit length used for all
members, shown in the figure below, are consistent with those used in the two
above mentioned references.
Important Note: Only bending and axial deformations are considered in the
analysis. Shear deformations are ignored by setting the shear area to 0.
9 @ 10' = 90'
10 @ 20' = 200'
Z
Y Material Properties Typical Section Properties
E = 432000 k/ft2 A = 3 ft2
X
Mass per unit length = 3 k-sec/ft2 I = 1 ft4
EXAMPLE 1-021 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0

Modal analysis for eigenvalues
Line mass assignment to frame objects
RESULTS COMPARISON
SAP2000 results are compared with independent results presented in Bathe and
Wilson 1972 as well as independent results presented in Peterson 1981.
Comparison with Bathe and Wilson 1972
Output Percent
Mode Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
1 Eigenvalue 0.589541 0.589541 0%
2 Eigenvalue 5.52696 5.52695 +0.0002%
3 Eigenvalue 16.5879 16.5878 +0.0006%
Comparison with Peterson 1981
Output Percent
1 Eigenvalue 0.589541 0.589541 0%
2 Eigenvalue 5.52696 5.52696 0%
3 Eigenvalue 16.5879 16.5879 0%
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an exact comparison with Peterson 1981 and an
acceptable comparison with Bathe and Wilson 1972.
EXAMPLE 1-021 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-022
FRAME TWO-DIMENSIONAL MOMENT FRAME WITH STATIC AND DYNAMIC LOADS
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example is a seven-story, two-dimensional, fixed base frame structure
subjected to lateral earthquake loads. The lateral earthquake load is modeled in
four different ways: as a static lateral load, as a response spectrum, as a modal
time history and as a direct integration time history. The results are compared
with the results from another computer program presented in the reference by
Engineering/Analysis Corporation and Computers/Structures International.
The earthquake excitation used in this example is the N-S component of the 1940
El Centro earthquake. The response spectrum function for this earthquake, shown
later, is input directly into the model. The digitized base acceleration is in the file
named ELCENTRO, which is read by the model when the analysis is run.
Important Note: Only the Ux, Uz and Ry degrees of freedom are active in the
SAP2000 model. Also, only bending and axial deformations are considered in the
analysis. Shear deformations are ignored. This is achieved in this example by
setting the shear area to 0 for all frame objects.
All framing and loads in this example are identical to those used in the above
mentioned reference. Static lateral loads are input as joint loads. The lateral (X)
displacements of the columns at each story level are constrained together using a
separate diaphragm constraint at each story level. Also 0.49 kip-sec2/in masses
are specified only in the lateral (X) direction at each story level. These modeling
techniques are commonly used to reduce the size of the equation system and
were used in the independent solution by Engineering/Analysis Corporation and
Computers/Structures International. The diaphragm constraints eliminate all axial
deformations in the beams. This and the absence of mass specification in the
vertical direction reduce the dynamic problem to seven modes of vibration. All
seven modes are included in the response spectrum analysis and the modal time
history analysis.
The independent solution uses the SRSS (square root sum of the squares) modal
combination technique for the response spectrum analysis. Two response
spectrum analyses are run in SAP2000, one using the SRSS modal combination
technique and the other using the CQC (complete quadratic combination) modal
combination technique. The CQC modal combination method is the default for
SAP2000 and is the recommended method.
EXAMPLE 1-022 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
The independent solution uses the modal time history analysis technique with 5%
damping for all modes. Two time history load cases are run in SAP2000. The
first is a modal time history analysis technique with 5% damping for all modes.
The second is a direct integration time history using the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor
alpha method for time integration with an alpha factor of zero.
The challenge that arises when including the direct integration time history in
this example is to get a good match between the 5% damping used in the modal
time history analysis and the mass and stiffness proportional damping specified
for the direct integration time history. In this example a mass proportional
damping coefficient of 0.3686 and a stiffness proportional coefficient of
0.005127 were used. These coefficients are calculated by assuming that the
damping for the first two modes is 5%; that is, that the damping at periods of
1.2732 and 0.4313 seconds is 5%. The table below shows a comparison of the
modal and proportional damping for all seven modes. Note that the proportional
damping has considerably more damping in the higher modes but the modal
participating mass ratio for the higher modes is low. Thus the higher damping
should have only a small influence on the results.
Comparison of Modal Damping used in Response Spectrum and Modal

Time History Analyses to Proportional Damping used in Direct
Integration Time History Analysis
Participating Modal Proportional
Mode Period (sec) Mass Ratio Damping Damping
1 1.2732 0.800 0.05 0.05
2 0.4313 0.113 0.05 0.05
3 0.2420 0.042 0.05 0.073
4 0.1602 0.021 0.05 0.105
5 0.1190 0.014 0.05 0.139
6 0.0951 0.007 0.05 0.172
7 0.0795 0.003 0.05 0.205
In the SAP2000 time history analyses the output sampling time interval used is
0.02 seconds and response is calculated for the first 8 seconds of the record. The
independent analysis has an output sampling time interval of 0.1 seconds.
Important Note: The AISC section properties in the database file

SECTIONS8.PRO are not used in this example and the required section
properties are explicitly entered. This is intentional because most of the sections
used in the example are older sections not in the current AISC database.
EXAMPLE 1-022 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
20 k 22 W24X110 23 W24X110 24 Roof Material Properties

28 35 E = 29,500 k/in2
W14X211
W14X176
W14X176
13' - 0"
7 14 21
15 k 19 W24X110 20 W24X110 21 Level 7 Section Properties
27 34 W14X176
W14X176
W14X211
W14X176
13' - 0"
6 13 20 A = 51.7 in2
I = 2,150 in4
12.5 k 16 W24X110 17 W24X110 18 Level 6
26 33 W14X211
W14X211
W14X211
W14X246
13' - 0"
5 12 19 A = 62.1 in2
I = 2,670 in4
10 k 13 W24X130 14 W24X130 15 Level 5
25 32 W14X246
W14X211
W14X246
W14X211
13' - 0"
4 11 18 A = 72.3 in2
I = 3,230 in4
7.5 k 10 W24X130 11 W24X130 12 Level 4
24 31 W14X287
W14X246
W14X246
W14X287
13' - 0"
3 10 17 A = 84.4 in2
I = 3,910 in4
5k 7 W24X160 8 W24X160 9 Level 3
23 30 W24X110
W14X246
W14X246
W14X287
13' - 6"
2 9 16 A = 2.5 in2
I = 3,330 in4
2.5 k 4 W24X160 5 W24X160 6 Level 2
22 29 W24X130
W14X246
W14X246
W14X287
13' - 6"
1 8 15 A = 38.3 in2
I = 4,020 in4
Z 1 2 3 Ground
W24X160
Y 30' 30'
A = 47.1 in2
X I = 5,120 in4
Joint Mass Applied to Joints 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 and 23
m =0.49 kip-sec2/in in the X direction only
EXAMPLE 1-022 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
RESPONSE SPECTRUM FUNCTION DEFINITION
Period (sec) Accel (g) Period (sec) Accel (g)

0.0769 0.505311 0.1602 0.804605
0.0795 0.519598 0.1667 0.787220
0.0800 0.520045 0.1818 0.943909
0.0833 0.518093 0.2000 1.005620
0.0870 0.493366 0.2222 0.746135
0.0909 0.477599 0.2420 0.704753
0.0951 0.527825 0.2500 0.798052
0.0952 0.530631 0.2857 0.718264
0.1000 0.581609 0.3333 0.880624
0.1053 0.564412 0.4000 0.882996
0.1111 0.523663 0.4313 0.921167
0.1176 0.572438 0.5000 1.046620
0.1190 0.588211 0.6667 0.641750
0.1250 0.627807 1.0000 0.482251
0.1333 0.665413 1.2730 0.258617
0.1429 0.636531 2.0000 0.160189
0.1538 0.905796
1.2
0.8
Acceleration (g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Period (sec)
EXAMPLE 1-022 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
TIME HISTORY BASE EXCITATION DEFINITION
0.4
0.3
0.2
Ground Acceleration (g)
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Time (sec)

Diaphragm constraint
Joint force assignments
Modal analysis for eigenvalues
Modal time history analysis for base excitation
Direct integration time history analysis for base excitation
EXAMPLE 1-022 - 5
REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
The independent results are published in the reference by Engineering/Analysis
Corporation and Computers/Structures International.
Time Periods (Load case MODAL)
Percent
Mode 1 period (sec) 1.2732 1.2732 0%
Mode 2 period (sec) 0.4313 0.4313 0%
Mode 3 period (sec) 0.2420 0.2420 0%
Mode 4 period (sec) 0.1602 0.1602 0%
Mode 5 period (sec) 0.1190 0.1190 0%
Mode 6 period (sec) 0.0951 0.0951 0%
Mode 7 period (sec) 0.0795 0.0795 0%
Static Lateral Analysis Results (Load case LAT)
Percent
Ux at joint 22 (in) 1.45076 1.45076 0%
Axial force in
69.99 69.99 0%
frame 1 (kip)
Moment in frame 1 at
2324.68 2324.68 0%
joint 1 (k-in)
EXAMPLE 1-022 - 6
REVISION NO.: 0
The first table below shows the response spectrum results when the SRSS modal
combination technique is used. The second table below is for the CQC modal
combination technique. Note that the independent response spectrum analysis
results are based on the SRSS modal combination technique.
Response Spectrum Analysis Results (Load case SPECSRSS)
Percent
Ux at joint 22 (in) 5.436 5.438 -0.04%
Axial force in
261.7 261.8 -0.04%
frame 1 (kip)
9864 9868 -0.04%
joint 1 (k-in)
Response Spectrum Analysis Results (Load case SPECCQC)
Percent
Ux at joint 22 (in) 5.431 5.438 -0.13%
Axial force in
261.5 261.8 -0.11%
frame 1 (kip)
9916 9868 +0.49%
joint 1 (k-in)
EXAMPLE 1-022 - 7
REVISION NO.: 0
The first table below shows the modal time history results and the second table
below shows the direct integration time history results.
Modal Time History Results (Load case MHIST1)
Percent
Ux at joint 22 (in) 5.486 5.46 +0.48%
Axial force in
263.0 258.0 +1.94%
frame 1 (kip)
9104 8740 +4.16%
joint 1 (k-in)
Direct Integration Time History Results (Load case DHIST1)
Percent
Ux at joint 22 (in) 5.485 5.46 +0.46%
Axial force in
263.2 258.0 +2.02%
frame 1 (kip)
9183 8740 +5.07%
joint 1 (k-in)
The differences between the SAP2000 results and the independent results occur
because the output sampling time interval used for SAP2000 is 0.02 seconds
whereas the output sampling time interval for the independent results is 0.1
seconds. Thus the independent results are not able to capture some of the peak
values that SAP2000 captures.
EXAMPLE 1-022 - 8
REVISION NO.: 0
COMPARISON OF SAP2000 MODAL AND DIRECT INTEGRATION TIME HISTORY RESULTS

The above presented results show some small differences between the SAP2000
modal time history results and the SAP2000 direct integration time history
results. These differences occur because the damping used in the two analyses is
slightly different and because the 0.02 second output sampling time interval is
too coarse for the results to have converged.
To directly compare the two time history methods, two new load cases are
created where the output sampling time interval is reduced to 0.001 seconds and
the damping for the modal time history case is changed to proportional damping
that matches the proportional damping in the direct integration time history (see
table on page 2 of this example). These new load cases are named MHIST2 and
DHIST2. The table below presents the results of these two cases. Note that they
are identical.
Modal Time History Compared to Direct Integration Time History

(0.001 second output sampling time interval)
SAP2000 SAP2000
Modal TH Direct TH Percent
Output Parameter (MHIST2) (DHIST2) Difference
Ux at joint 22 (in) 5.499 5.499 0%
Axial force in
264.0 264.0 0%
frame 1 (kip)
9200 9200 0%
joint 1 (k-in)
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 and independent results show exact comparison for the static
analysis and mode shapes and acceptable comparison for the dynamic results.
Also the SAP2000 modal time history and direct time history methods converge
to the same results when the output sampling time is sufficiently small.
EXAMPLE 1-022 - 9
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-023
FRAME ASME EIGENVALUE PROBLEM
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A one-story, one-bay in each direction, three-dimensional, fixed-base frame
made of 2-inch steel pipe segments and 2.75-inch steel cubes is analyzed for the
first 24 modal frequencies using eigenvectors. The frame is Problem No. 1 from
the ASME 1972 Program Verification and Qualification Library (reference
ASME 1972).
The material and section properties, and the mass at each node, shown in the
figure below are consistent with those used in the above mentioned references.
Because masses are specified in three directions at 14 nodes, this problem has a
total of 3 * 14 = 42 dynamic degrees of freedom.

25" 8 .6
8 .6
0" 17 25
27 .2 5 .2 5 10" 18
" 8 .6
0" 5" 16 12 25
8 .6 2 14 8 "
15
13 11 18 17
10" 8.625"
12 7 14 9
18.625"
6 16 10 11 6
4 13
5 17 15 10 8
CL 2" pipe 9 5
3 3 7
4 2
2.75" cube 2
1 1 = Joint number
Z
Fixed base 1 1 = Frame number
Y X
Material Properties Typical Section Properties
E =27,900 lb/in2 Nominal 2" Pipe
= 0.3 Outer diameter = 2.375 in
Wall thickness = 0.154 in
Joint Masses
Mass at joints 3, 6, 9, 12 = 25.35533E-03 lb-sec2/in
Mass at other joints = 8.942228E-03 lb-sec2/in
EXAMPLE 1-023 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0

Three-dimensional frame analysis
Modal analysis using eigenvectors
RESULTS COMPARISON
The SAP2000 results for the first 24 natural frequencies are compared with
independent results presented in Peterson 1981 as well as independent results
presented in DeSalvo and Swanson 1977. These two independent results are
essentially identical and thus are presented in a single column below as the
independent results.
Important Note: An exact one-to-one comparison of SAP2000 results with the

independent results is not possible for this problem because the independent
references use the Guyan reduction method to reduce the 42 dynamic degrees of
freedom problem to 24. This introduces approximations into the solution that are
not present in the SAP2000 solution.
Output Percent
1 Frequency 112 112 0%
2 Frequency 117 116 +1%
5 Frequency 415 404 +3%
6 Frequency 434 423 +3%
7 Frequency 463 452 +2%
8 Frequency 561 554 +1%
9 Frequency 752 736 +2%
10 Frequency 777 762 +2%
EXAMPLE 1-023 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
Output Percent
11 Frequency 873 853 +2%
12 Frequency 914 894 +2%
13 Frequency 915 910 +1%
14 Frequency 934 917 +2%
15 Frequency 955 940 +2%
16 Frequency 980 960 +2%
17 Frequency 988 971 +2%
18 Frequency 991 977 +1%
19 Frequency 1002 1012 -1%
20 Frequency 1032 1028 0%
21 Frequency 1090 1124 -3%
22 Frequency 1151 1135 +1%
23 Frequency 1177 1164 +1%
24 Frequency 1229 1217 +1%
CONCLUSION
The comparison between SAP2000 and the independent results is acceptable, and
is quite good considering the solution differences discussed previously in the
important note above the comparison table.
EXAMPLE 1-023 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-024
FRAME RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS OF A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOMENT FRAME
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
In this example a two-story, two-bay in each direction, three-dimensional, fixed
base frame structure is analyzed using a response spectrum analysis. The modal
frequencies and X direction displacement at the story level centers of mass are
compared with independent results from another computer program presented in
Peterson 1981.
The structure is doubly symmetric in plan, except that the center of mass at each
story level is eccentric and is given by the coordinates X = 38 feet and Y = 27
feet, as shown in the figure. Additional joints labeled 28 and 29 are added at the
center of mass location at each story level. All of the story mass is applied at
these joints.
The masses are applied in the X and Y directions only. No rotational mass inertia
is used for consistency with Peterson 1981. Thus the problem has four natural
modes. All four modes are used in the response spectrum analysis.
Two rigid diaphragm constraints are defined, one for each of the story levels. All
of the joints at Level 2 are constrained together, including the joint at the center
of mass. Similarly, all of the joints at the Roof level are constrained together. For
each of the story levels, the X and Y displacements and the Z rotations for all
joints are dependent on each other.
An eigenvector solution is used to obtain the modal frequencies. Four different

response spectrum analyses are performed, with each using a different type of
modal combination. The combination types used are CQC (complete quadratic
combination), SRSS (square root sum of the squares), ABS (absolute) and NRC
10 Percent. The results are compared with results using CQC, SRSS, ABS and
NRC 10 Percent modal combinations in the independent reference.
The applied response spectrum is a constant 0.4g for all modes. This spectrum is
applied in the X direction of the structure only. Modal damping is assumed to be
4% for all modes.
Important Note: Only bending and axial deformations are considered in this
example. Shear deformations are ignored by setting the shear area to zero for
each frame object in the structure.
EXAMPLE 1-024 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
25 35 26 36 27
38 16 40 17 42 18
13'
16 23 29 17 24 18
22 33 23 34 24
13'
37 26 7 39 28 8 41 30 9
13 14 15
7 21 28 8 22 9
13 14 15
19 31 20 32 21
25'
25 4 27 5 29 6
10 11 12
4 19 5 20 6
10 11 12
1 - Joint number
25'
1 Z Y 2 3
1 - Column number
1 X 2 19 - Beam number 3
35' 35'
Column Local Axes X-Direction Beam Local Axes Y-Direction Beam Local Axes
2
1 2 1
1 3
3 3
Column Properties Beam Properties Center of Mass and Mass Information

E = 350,000 k/ft2 E = 500,000 k/ft2 Level 2 CM (Joint 28) at (38, 27, 13)
A = 4 ft2 A = 5 ft2 Level 1 CM (Joint 29) at (38, 27, 26)
I33 = 1.25 ft4 I33 = 2.61 ft4 Typical story mass located at
I22 = 1.25 ft4 I22 = 1.67 ft4 joints 28 and 29 = 6.2112 k-sec2/ft
EXAMPLE 1-024 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0

Rigid diaphragm constraint
RESULTS COMPARISON
The SAP2000 results are compared with independent results presented in
Peterson 1981.
Percent
Mode 1 period, sec 0.2271 0.2271 0%
Mode 2 period, sec 0.2156 0.2156 0%
Mode 3 period, sec 0.0733 0.0733 0%
Mode 4 period, sec 0.0720 0.0720 0%
X Displacement (jt 29) ft

0.02014 0.02014 0%
CQC modal combination

0.02012 0.02012 0%
SRSS modal combination

0.02050 0.02050 0%
ABS modal combination

0.02016 0.02016 0%
10% modal combination
CONCLUSION
EXAMPLE 1-024 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-025
FRAME RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS OF A THREE-DIMENSIONAL BRACED FRAME
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
In this example a three-story, L-shaped frame structure is analyzed using a
response spectrum analysis. The modal frequencies, center of mass displacement
at the roof level and axial forces in several members are compared with
independent results from another computer program presented in Peterson 1981.
The structure consists of four identical frames that have columns and diagonal
braces only. The frame objects can carry axial loads only. This is achieved in the
model by pinning the ends of each diagonal brace and pinning the bottom of each
column object at each story level. The frames are connected in plan by rigid
diaphragms at each story level. Beams are not required at the story levels because
the rigid diaphragm prevents them from carrying any loads.
A center of mass joint is defined at each story level located 33'-4" from the origin
in both the X and Y directions. All mass properties are concentrated at the center
of mass joints and they are identical at each of the three levels. X and Y
translational masses and a rotational mass moment of inertia about the Z axis are
defined at each center of mass joint. Thus there are nine dynamic degrees of
freedom and the model has nine natural modes. For consistency with Peterson
1981, only the first two modes are used in the response spectrum analysis.
Three rigid diaphragm constraints are defined, one for each of the story levels.
All of the joints at Level 2 are constrained together, including the joint at the
center of mass. Similarly, all of the joints at Level 3 and at the Roof level are
constrained together. For each of the story levels, the X and Y displacements and
the Z rotations for all joints are dependent on each other.
An eigenvector solution is used to obtain the modal frequencies. Three different

response spectrum analyses are performed with each using a different type of
modal combination. The combination types used are CQC (complete quadratic
combination), SRSS (square root sum of the squares) and ABS (absolute). The
results are compared with results using CQC, SRSS, and ABS modal
combinations in the independent reference.
The applied earthquake for this example, the N-S component of the 1940 El
Centro earthquake, is applied in the X-direction of the model with 5% modal
damping assumed for all modes.
EXAMPLE 1-025 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
For consistency with Peterson 1981, Response Spectrum Function

this column is modeled twice, once for (5% Damped)
Frame 2 and once for Frame 3 Period (sec) Accel (g)
0.01 0.794273
Frame 2
0.320640 0.794273
20'
0.326887 0.810009
Building 10 0.810009
Frame 3
perimeter
Typical Story Masses Properties
MassX = 1.24224 kip-sec2/in
20'
MassY = 1.24224 kip-sec2/in

MMI = 174,907.4 kip-in-sec2
33'-4"
Center of mass
20'
Joint 49 at Level 2
Frame 4
Joint 50 at Level 3
33'-4"
Joint 51 at Roof
Y
20'
X Frame 1
20' 20' 20' 20'
10 11 12 Roof
Note: There are no

15 16 17
12'
beams in the frame

7 18 20 8 19 21 9 Level 3
Typical Properties
8 9 10 E =29,500 k/in2
12'
4 5 6 A = 6 in2
11 13 12 14 Level 2
1 2 3 1 - Joint number
12'
1 - Frame number
1 4 6 2 5 7 3 Base
20' 20'
Elevation of Frame 1
Frame 2 similar, increment joints by 12 and frames by 21;
Frame 3 similar, increment joints by 24 and frames by 42;
Frame 4 similar, increment joints by 36 and frames by 63
EXAMPLE 1-025 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0

Rigid diaphragm constraint
RESULTS COMPARISON
The SAP2000 results are compared with independent results presented in
Peterson 1981.
Modal Period Results
Output Percent
1 Frequency, Hz 3.0592 3.0592 0%
2 Frequency, Hz 3.1188 3.1188 0%
Roof Level Center of Mass Displacement Results
Output Modal Percent

Joint Parameter Comb. SAP2000 Independent Difference
CQC 1.0329 1.0329 0%
51 X Displ., in SRSS 0.7372 0.7372 0%
ABS 1.0423 1.0423 0%
CQC 0.1414 0.1414 0%
51 Y Displ., in SRSS 0.7372 0.7372 0%
ABS 1.0423 1.0423 0%
CQC 0.000252 0.000252 0%
51 Z Rot., rad SRSS 0.000252 0.000252 0%
ABS 0.000252 0.000252 0%
EXAMPLE 1-025 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
Frame Axial Force Results
Frame Output Modal Percent

Elm. Parameter Comb. SAP2000 Independent Difference
CQC 279.48 279.48 0%
Axial
1 SRSS 200.55 200.55 0%
Force, kips
ABS 281.99 281.99 0%
CQC 194.50 194.50 0%
Axial
4 SRSS 139.57 139.57 0%
Force, kips
ABS 196.25 196.25 0%
CQC 120.52 120.52 0%
Axial
6 SRSS 86.48 86.48 0%
Force, kips
ABS 121.61 121.61 0%
CONCLUSION
EXAMPLE 1-025 - 4
REVISION NO.: 6
EXAMPLE 1-026
FRAME MOMENT AND SHEAR HINGES
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example uses a horizontal cantilever beam to test the SAP2000 moment and
shear hinges in a static nonlinear analysis. The cantilever beam has a moment
(My) hinge and a shear (Vz) hinge at its fixed end. A vertical load, P, is applied to
the cantilever and increased until the vertical tip deflection, Uz, equals 2". Two
models are used in the example. Model B applies a default auto subdivide hinge
overwrite to the line object containing the hinge whereas Model A does not.
Multiple states are saved for the analysis with the minimum number of saved
states set to 6 and the maximum number of saved states set to 10. The tip
deflection, Uz, and tip rotation, Ry, for several of the saved states (identified on
the next page) are compared with independent hand calculated results.
Important Notes: Bending and shear deformations are included in this example.
Also, in SAP2000 frame hinges are only active in nonlinear static and nonlinear
direct time history load cases. The hinges are ignored in all other types of load
cases

24" 12" Material Properties
C E = 3,600 k/in2
= 0.2
Z
18"
G = 1,500 k/in2
Moment hinge (My) Section Properties
Y and shear hinge (Vz) C Section C-C b = 12 in
X P
d = 18 in
A = 216 in2
I = 5,832 in4
1920 Moment Hinge Shear Hinge
Moment (kip-in)
Moment-Rotation Force-Deformation
Shear (kips)
1440 80 Loading
70 Increase P until the free
end tip deflection in the
480 Z direction is 2 inches
0.04 0.4
Plastic Rotation (radians) Plastic Deformation (inches)
EXAMPLE 1-026 - 1
REVISION NO.: 6

Static nonlinear analysis of a frame structure with moment and shear hinges
RESULTS COMPARISON
Force P and free end vertical
Force P (kips)
displacement and rotation are reported for 80 2
the saved states corresponding to the 1
60
points labeled 1, 2 and 3 on the cantilever
beam force-tip deflection (P-Uz) diagram
20 3
shown to the right. Independent results
are hand calculated using the unit load
method described on page 244 in Cook Tip Deflection, Uz (inches)
and Young 1985 together with basic
deflection formulas and superposition.
Results Without Hinge Overwrite (Model B)
Percent
Point Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Force P (free end) kips 60 60 0%
1 Uz (free end) in 0.0185 0.0185 0%
Ry (free end) rad -0.0008 -0.0008 0%
2 Uz (free end) in 1.3847 1.3847 0%
Ry (free end) rad -0.0411 -0.0411 0%
3 Uz (free end) in 1.3662 1.7612 29%
Ry (free end) rad -0.0403 -0.0567 41%
EXAMPLE 1-026 - 2
REVISION NO.: 6
Results With Hinge Overwrite (Model B)
Percent
Point Output Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
1 Uz (free end) in 0.0185 0.0185 0%
Ry (free end) rad -0.0008 -0.0008 0%
2 Uz (free end) in 1.3847 1.3847 0%
Ry (free end) rad -0.0411 -0.0411 0%
3 Uz (free end) in 1.3662 1.3701 0%
Ry (free end) rad -0.0403 -0.0404 0%
COMPUTER FILES: Example 1-026a, Example 1-026b
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an acceptable comparison with the independent
results when the auto subdivide overwrite is used.
Sharp vertical drops in hinge forces or moments may not always be realistic and
can cause analysis convergence difficulties in more complicated models. For this
reason Sap2000 automatically limits the steepness of vertical drops to one-tenth
of the elastic stiffness of the element containing the hinge. When a frame object
is subdivided the shorter elements have larger elastic stiffnesses which permit
drops in hinge forces or moments that are closer to vertical. It is for this reason
that model B, which has an automatically meshed element that is 1% of the total
length, permits a steeper drop than model A. The drop is so steep that snap back
(negative displacement increment) of the overall cantilever can be observed.
Steep (nearly vertical) hinge drops should be avoided whenever possible.
EXAMPLE 1-026 - 3
REVISION NO.: 6
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-026 - 4
REVISION NO.: 6
EXAMPLE 1-026 - 5
REVISION NO.: 6
EXAMPLE 1-026 - 6
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-027
FRAME CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE LOADING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example applies construction sequence loading to a three-element frame to
test the SAP2000 staged construction capabilities.
The first construction stage includes frame object 1 only. Stage 2 adds frame
objects 2 and 3 to the model. Finally, stage 3 removes frame object 3 from the
model.
For each stage of the construction, the vertical reaction at joint 1 and the vertical
displacement at joint 2 are compared with independent hand calculated results.
Important Note: Bending, shear and axial deformations are all included in this
example. Only the Ux, Uz and Ry degrees of freedom are active in this two-
dimensional example.
Material Properties
E = 29,900 k/in2
100 k Stage 1 = 0.3
W36X150 G = 11,500 k/in2
1 1 2 Section Properties
W4X13
2 W36X150
72"
Stage 2 I = 9040 in4

25 k Av = 22.4375 in2 (shear area)
Z 3
W4X13
W4X13
A = 3.83 in2
3
72"
Y Loading
X 4
Stage 3 Joint 2: Fz = -100 k
Joint 3: Fz = -25 k
EXAMPLE 1-027 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0

Nonlinear static analysis using the construction sequence loading option
Frame end releases
RESULTS COMPARISON
page 244 in Cook and Young 1985 together with basic deflection formulas.
Output Percent
Stage Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Uz (jt 2) in -0.42404 -0.42404 0%

1
Fz (jt 1) kips 100 100 0%
Uz (jt 2) in -0.43617 -0.43617 0%

2
Fz (jt 1) kips 102.859 102.859 0%
Uz (jt 2) in -0.53005 -0.53005 0%

3
Fz (jt 1) kips 125 125 0%
COMPUTER FILES: Example 1-027
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show a exact comparison with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 1-027 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-027 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-027 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-028
FRAME LARGE AXIAL DISPLACEMENTS
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example uses a three-hinged arch to test static nonlinear analysis with large
axial displacements in SAP2000. A concentrated vertical downward load, P, is
applied to the center joint of the three-hinge arch. The load P is increased until
the vertical downward deflection at the center joint reaches one foot. The
resulting vertical support reaction at joint 1 is compared with independent hand
calculated results.
P Material Properties
E = 29,000 k/in2
Z 2 Section Properties
1 3 W14X90
3'
A = 26.5 in2
X I = 999 in4
10' 10'
Loading
20'
Increase P until downward
deflection at joint 2 is one foot

Static nonlinear analysis of frame structure with large axial displacements
using the SAP2000 P-Delta plus large displacements option
Frame end releases
RESULTS COMPARISON
The independent results are calculated using basic statics.
Percent
Fz (jt 1) kip 3,497 3,497 0%
EXAMPLE 1-028 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an exact match with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 1-028 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-028 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-028 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-029
FRAME LARGE BENDING DISPLACEMENTS
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example uses a fixed base cantilever column to test static nonlinear analysis
with large bending displacements in SAP2000. A concentrated moment, M, is
applied at the top of the column. The moment M is increased until the rotation at
the top of the column is equal to radians (180 degrees). The resulting vertical
and horizontal displacements of the top of the column and the moment required
to create the desired deflected shape are compared with independent hand
calculated results.
Three different models, labeled A, B and C are run for this example. The models
are identical except for the discretization of the column, which is broken up into
4, 16 and 64 elements in models A, B and C, respectively.
After running the analysis, use the Display menu > Show Deformed Shape
command to display the deflected shape. To get the deflected shape to display
properly, uncheck the cubic curve option, select the Scale Factor option in the
Scaling area of the form, and set the Scale Factor to 1.
Note that for this problem with large bending displacements the iteration
convergence tolerance for the nonlinear static load case is set to 1E-06. Large
displacements problems often require tighter iteration tolerances.
M
Material Properties
E = 29,000 k/in2
Section Properties
100"
W4X13
Deflected shape
A = 3.83 in2
I = 11.3 in4
Z Frame Object Discretization

1 Model A: 4 frame elements per frame object
Y Model B: 16 frame elements per frame object
X Model C: 64 frame elements per frame object
EXAMPLE 1-029 - 1
REVISION NO.: 0

Static nonlinear analysis of frame structure with large bending displacements
using the SAP2000 P-Delta plus large displacements option
RESULTS COMPARISON
Because the column is subjected to pure moment, it should bend in a circular arc.
Thus, the independent results for displacement are calculated from the properties
of a circle. The independent results for the moment are calculated using Equation
4 in Article 7.1 of Chapter 7 on page 91 of Roark and Young 1975.
# Output Percent
Model Elms. Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Ux (jt 2) in 65.328 63.662 +2.62%
A 4 Uz (jt 2) in -100 -100 0%
Moment k-in 10295 10295 0%
Ux (jt 2) in 63.764 63.662 +0.16%
B 16 Uz (jt 2) in -100 -100 0%
Moment k-in 10295 10295 0%
Ux (jt 2) in 63.668 63.662 +0.01%
C 64 Uz (jt 2) in -100 -100 0%
Moment k-in 10295 10295 0%
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an acceptable match with the independent results. As
the discretization of the frame object increases, the SAP2000 and independent
results converge.
EXAMPLE 1-029 - 2
REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-029 - 3
REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE 1-029 - 4
REVISION NO.: 10
EXAMPLE 1-030
FRAME MOVING LOADS
IMPORTANT NOTE
This example applies to CSiBridge only. Starting with Sap2000 version 15.00
the example does not apply to Sap2000 because it uses features that are not
supported in Sap2000.
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
This example uses a 40-foot-long simple span bridge (beam) to test moving load
load cases. Moving load cases use defined vehicle loads and defined lanes (rather
than the load cases that are used by other analysis types) to calculate the most
severe response resulting from vehicle live loads moving along lanes on the
structure.
A single 12-foot-wide lane with a maximum discretization length of 2 feet is

defined along the center line of the bridge structure. An H20-44 truck load
vehicle and an H20-44L lane load vehicle are created and a vehicle class
containing both the H20-44 and H20-44L vehicles is defined. The moving load
analysis considers both vehicles separately and reports the worst-case response.
In addition to the moving load case, this example also includes a multi-step static
analysis for the H20-44 vehicle. This analysis simulates the truck moving across
the bridge.
For each of the load cases the maximum moment and maximum reaction are
compared with independent results that are either presented in Appendix A of
AASHTO 1990 or hand calculated.
Output stations along the frame element modeling the bridge are specified to be
at a maximum spacing of 2 feet.

Moving load case
Multi-step static load case for vehicles
EXAMPLE 1-030 - 1
REVISION NO.: 10

12' Material Properties
Bridge structure C E = 518,400 k/ft2
Lane
and lane = 0.2
1.5'
Z Section Properties
b = 12 ft
1 40' C 2 Section C-C d = 1.5 ft
X
26k for all
response
18k for except
32k moment
Analysis Cases 8k moment
only
MOVEINF: Moving load analysis case; each vehicle
is run forward (from joint 1 to 2) and 14' 0.640 k/ft
backward along the lane
MOVEMS: Multi-step static analysis case; H20-44 H20-44
vehicle is run forward along the lane Truck Load H20-44 Lane Load
RESULTS COMPARISON
The independent results for all items, except the maximum reaction for the
MOVEMS load case, are taken from tables in Appendix A of AASHTO 1990.
The independent results for the MOVEMS load case are hand calculated.
Output Percent
Load Case Parameter SAP2000 Independent Difference
Max Moment
MOVEINF 345.6 346.0 -0.1%
k-ft
Moving load
Max Reaction
case 38.789 38.8 0%
kips
Max Moment
MOVEMS 345.5 346.0 -0.1%
k-ft
Multi-step static
Max Reaction
load case 37.192 37.2 0%
kips
The maximum moment in the MOVEINF load case is controlled by the

H20-44 truck load. It is the same as the maximum moment in the MOVEMS load
case, which considers only the truck load.
EXAMPLE 1-030 - 2
REVISION NO.: 10
The maximum reaction in the MOVEINF load case is controlled by the

H20-44L lane load. It is larger than the maximum reaction in the MOVEMS load
case, which considers only the truck load.
COMPUTER FILES: Example 1-030
CONCLUSION
The SAP2000 results show an acceptable match with the independent results.
EXAMPLE 1-030 - 3
REVISION NO.: 10
HAND CALCULATION
EXAMPLE 1-030 - 4
REVISION NO.: 0
AISC 360-05 Example 001
WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The design flexural strengths are checked for the beam shown below. The beam
is loaded with a uniform load of 0.45 klf (D) and 0.75 klf (L). The flexural
moment capacity is checked for three unsupported lengths in the weak direction,
Lb = 5 ft, 11.667 ft and 35 ft.
Member Properties Loading Geometry

W18X50 w = 0.45 klf (D) Span, L = 35 ft
E = 29000 ksi w = 0.75 klf (L)
Fy = 50 ksi
TECHNICAL FEATURES TESTED

Section Compactness Check (Bending)
Member Bending Capacities
Unsupported length factors
AISC 360-05 Example 001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are comparing with the results of Example F.1-2a from the
AISC Design Examples, Volume 13 on the application of the 2005 AISC
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-05).
Percent
Compactness Compact Compact 0.00%
Cb ( Lb =5ft) 1.004 1.002 0.20%
b M n ( Lb =5ft) (k-ft) 378.750 378.750 0.00%
Cb ( Lb =11.67ft) 1.015 1.014 0.10%
b M n ( Lb =11.67ft) (k-ft) 307.124 306.657 0.15%
Cb ( Lb =35ft) 1.138 1.136 0.18%
b M n ( Lb =35ft) (k-ft) 94.377 94.218 0.17%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC 360-05 EX001
CONCLUSION
The results show an acceptable comparison with the independent results.

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50 Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Section: W18x50
bf = 7.5 in, tf = 0.57 in, d = 18 in, tw = 0.355 in
h = d 2t f = 18 2 0.57 = 16.86 in
h0 = d t f =18 0.57 =17.43 in

S33 = 88.9 in3, Z33 = 101 in3
Iy =40.1 in4, ry = 1.652 in, Cw = 3045.644 in6, J = 1.240 in4
I y Cw 40.1 3045.644
=rts = = 1.98 in
S33 88.889
Rm = 1.0 for doubly-symmetric sections

Other:
c = 1.0
L = 35 ft
Loadings:
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 1.2(0.45) + 1.6(0.75) = 1.74 k/ft
Mu =
wu L2
8

= 1.74 352/8 = 266.4375 k-ft
Section Compactness:
Localized Buckling for Flange:
bf 7.50
= = = 6.579
2t f 2 0.57

REVISION NO.: 0
E 29000
p = 0.38 = 0.38 = 9.152
Fy 50
< p , No localized flange buckling

Flange is Compact.
Localized Buckling for Web:

h 16.86

= = = 47.49
tw 0.355
E 29000
p = 3.76 = 3.76 = 90.553
Fy 50
< p , No localized web buckling

Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.
Section Bending Capacity:

M p =Fy Z 33 =50 101 =5050 k in
Lateral-Torsional Buckling Parameters:

Critical Lengths:
E 29000
Lp =
1.76 ry =
1.76 1.652 =
70.022 in =
5.835 ft
Fy 50
2
E Jc 0.7 Fy S33 ho
=Lr 1.95rts 1 + 1 + 6.76
0.7 Fy S33 ho E Jc
29000 1.240 1.0 0.7 50 88.9 17.43

2
Lr = 1.95 1.98 1 + 1 + 6.76

0.7 50 88.9 17.43 29000 1.240 1.0

REVISION NO.: 0
Lr = 16.966 ft
Non-Uniform Moment Magnification Factor:

For the lateral-torsional buckling limit state, the non-uniform moment magnification factor is
calculated using the following equation:
12.5M max
Cb = Rm 3.0 Eqn. 1
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
Where MA = first quarter-span moment, MB = mid-span moment, MC = second quarter-span
moment.
The required moments for Eqn. 1 can be calculated as a percentage of the maximum mid-span
moment. Since the loading is uniform and the resulting moment is symmetric:
2
1 L
M A = MC = 1 b
4 L
Member Bending Capacity for Lb = 5 ft:

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1 L 1 5
MA =
MC =
1 b =
1 = 0.995
4 L 4 35
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.995 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.995 )
Cb = 1.002
Lb < L p , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:
=
M n =
M p 5050 k in
b M=
n 0.9 5050 /12
b M n 378.75 k ft
=

REVISION NO.: 0
Member Bending Capacity for Lb = 11.667 ft:

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1 L 1 11.667
MA =
MC =
1 b =
1 =
0.972
4 L 4 35
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 )
Cb = 1.014
L p < Lb < Lr , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:
Lb L p
M n = C b M p (M p 0.7 Fy S 33 ) M p

L
r L p
11.667 5.835
=M n 1.014 5050 ( 5050 0.7 50 88.889 ) = 4088.733 k in
16.966 5.835
b M=
n 0.9 4088.733 /12
b M n 306.657 k ft
=

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1 L 1 35
MA =
MC =
1 b =
1 = 0.750 .
4 L 4 35
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb = (1.00 )
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 )
Cb = 1.136
Lb > Lr , Lateral-Torsional buckling capacity is as follows:

REVISION NO.: 0
2
Cb 2 E Jc L
Fcr = 2
1 + 0.078 b
Lb S 33 ho rts

r
ts
1.136 2 29000 1.24 1 420

2
Fcr = 1 + 0.078 =
14.133 ksi
420
2
88.889 17.4 1.983

1.983
M n = Fcr S 33 M p
M n= 14.133 88.9= 1256.245 k in
b M=
n 0.9 1256.245 /12
b M n 94.218 k ft
=

REVISION NO.: 0
BUILT UP WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A demand capacity ratio is calculated for the built-up, ASTM A572 grade 50,
column shown below. An axial load of 70 kips (D) and 210 kips (L) is applied to
a simply supported column with a height of 15 ft.

Section compactness check (compression)
Warping constant calculation, Cw
Member compression capacity with slenderness reduction

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are hand calculated and compared with the results from
Example E.2 AISC Design Examples, Volume 13.0 on the application of the 2005
AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-05).
Percent
Compactness Slender Slender 0.00%
cPn (kips) 506.1 506.1 0.00 %
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact comparison with the independent results.

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Section: Built-Up Wide Flange

d = 17.0 in, bf = 8.00 in, tf = 1.00 in, h = 15.0 in, tw = 0.250 in.
Ignoring fillet welds:
A = 2(8.00)(1.00) + (15.0)(0.250) = 19.75 in2

2(1.0)(8.0)3 (15.0)(0.25)3
Iy = + =85.35 in 3
12 12
Iy 85.4
=
ry = = 2.08 in.
A 19.8
I x = Ad 2 + I x
(0.250)(15.0)3 2(8.0)(1.0)3
I x = 2(8.0)(8.0) 2 + + = 1095.65 in 4
12 12
t +t 1+1
d ' =
d 1 2 = 17 = 16 in
2 2
Iy d '2 (85.35)(16.0) 2
= Cw = = 5462.583 in 4
4 4
bt 3 2(8.0)(1.0)3 + (15.0)(0.250)3
= J = = 5.41 in 4
3 3
Member:
K = 1.0 for a pinned-pinned condition
L = 15 ft
Loadings:
Pu = 1.2(70.0) + 1.6(210) = 420 kips

REVISION NO.: 0
Check for slender elements using Specification Section E7

b 4.0
=
= = 4.0
t 1.0
E 29000
= p 0.38
= 0.38 = 9.152
Fy 50
Flange is Compact.

h 15.0
== = 60.0 ,
t 0.250
E 29000
=r 1.49
= 1.49 = 35.9
Fy 50
> r , Localized web buckling
Web is Slender.
Section is Slender
Member Compression Capacity:

Elastic Flexural Buckling Stress
Since the unbraced length is the same for both axes, the y-y axis will govern by
inspection.
KL y 1.0(15 12 )
= = 86.6
ry 2.08
2E 2 29000
Fe = = = 38.18 ksi
KL
2
(86.6)2

r

REVISION NO.: 0
Elastic Critical Torsional Buckling Stress

Note: Torsional buckling will not govern if KLy > KLz, however, the check is included
here to illustrate the calculation.
2 EC w 1
Fe = + GJ
(K z L ) Ix + Iy
2
2 29000 5462.4 1
=Fe + 11200 5.41 = 91.8 ksi > 38.18 ksi
(180 ) 1100 + 85.4
2

Therefore, the flexural buckling limit state controls.
Fe = 38.18 ksi
Section Reduction Factors
Since the flange is not slender,

Qs = 1.0
Since the web is slender,

For equation E7-17, take f as Fcr with Q = 1.0
E 29000 KLy
4.71 =4.71 =113 > =86.6
QFy 1.0 ( 50 ) ry
So
QFy
1.0( 50 )

f = Fcr = Q 0.658 Fe Fy = 1.0 0.658 38.2 50 = 28.9 ksi

E 0.34 E
be = 1.92t 1 b, where b = h
f ( b t ) f
29000 0.34 29000
be = 1.92 ( 0.250 ) 1 15.0in
28.9 (15.0 0.250 ) 28.9
=be 12.5in 15.0in

REVISION NO.: 0
therefore compute Aeff with reduced effective web width.

Aeff = betw + 2b f t f =(12.5)( 0.250 ) + 2 (8.0 )(1.0 ) =19.1 in 2
where Aeff is effective area based on the reduced effective width of the web, be.
Aeff 19.1
=
Qa= = 0.968
A 19.75
=Q Q=
s Qa (1.00 )( 0.968
= ) 0.968
Critical Buckling Stress
Determine whether Specification Equation E7-2 or E7-3 applies
E 29000 KLy
4.71 = 4.71 = 115.4 > = 86.6
QFy 0.966 ( 50 ) ry
Therefore, Specification Equation E7-2 applies.
E KL
When 4.71
QFy r
QFy
1.0( 50 )

=Fcr Q 0.658
= Fe
Fy 0.966 0.658
= 38.18
50 28.47 ksi

Nominal Compressive Strength
Pn =Fcr Ag =28.5 19.75 =562.3kips

c =0.90
c P=
n Fcr Ag= 0.90 ( 562.3=) 506.1kips > 420 kips
c Pn =
506.1kips

REVISION NO.: 0
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
is loaded with a uniform load of 0.45 klf (D) and 0.75 klf (L). The flexural
moment capacity is checked for three unsupported lengths in the weak direction,
Lb = 5 ft, 11.667 ft and 35 ft.

W18X50 w = 0.45 klf (D) Span, L = 35 ft
E = 29000 ksi w = 0.75 klf (L)
Fy = 50 ksi

Section compactness check (bending)
Member bending capacities

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are comparing with the results of Example F.1-2a from the
AISC Design Examples, Volume 13 on the application of the 2005 AISC
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10).
Percent
Cb ( Lb =5ft) 1.004 1.002 0.20%
b M n ( Lb =5ft) (k-ft) 378.750 378.750 0.00%
Cb ( Lb =11.67ft) 1.015 1.014 0.10%
b M n ( Lb =11.67ft) (k-ft) 307.124 306.657 0.15%
Cb ( Lb =35ft) 1.138 1.136 0.18%
b M n ( Lb =35ft) (k-ft) 94.377 94.218 0.17%
CONCLUSION

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Section: W18x50
bf = 7.5 in, tf = 0.57 in, d = 18 in, tw = 0.355 in
h = d 2t f = 18 2 0.57 = 16.86 in
h0 = d t f =18 0.57 =17.43 in

S33 = 88.9 in3, Z33 = 101 in3
Iy =40.1 in4, ry = 1.652 in, Cw = 3045.644 in6, J = 1.240 in4
I y Cw 40.1 3045.644
=rts = = 1.98in
S33 88.889
Rm = 1.0 for doubly-symmetric sections

Other:
c = 1.0
L = 35 ft
Loadings:
wu = (1.2wd + 1.6wl) = 1.2(0.45) + 1.6(0.75) = 1.74 k/ft
Mu =
wu L2
8

= 1.74 352/8 = 266.4375 k-ft
bf 7.50
= = = 6.579
2t f 2 0.57

REVISION NO.: 0
E 29000
p = 0.38 = 0.38 = 9.152
Fy 50

Flange is Compact.

h 16.86

= = = 47.49
tw 0.355
E 29000
p = 3.76 = 3.76 = 90.553
Fy 50

Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.

M p =Fy Z 33 =50 101 =5050 k-in

Critical Lengths:
E 29000
Lp =
1.76 ry =
1.76 1.652 =
70.022 in =
5.835ft
Fy 50
2
E Jc 0.7 Fy S33 ho
=Lr 1.95rts 1 + 1 + 6.76
0.7 Fy S33 ho E Jc
29000 1.240 1.0 0.7 50 88.9 17.43

2
Lr = 1.95 1.98 1 + 1 + 6.76

0.7 50 88.9 17.43 29000 1.240 1.0
Lr = 16.966 ft

REVISION NO.: 0

For the lateral-torsional buckling limit state, the non-uniform moment magnification
factor is calculated using the following equation:
12.5M max
Cb = Rm 3.0 Eqn. 1
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
where MA = first quarter-span moment, MB = mid-span moment, MC = second quarter-
span moment.
The required moments for Eqn. 1 can be calculated as a percentage of the maximum
mid-span moment. Since the loading is uniform and the resulting moment is symmetric:
2
1 L
M A = MC = 1 b
4 L
M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L 1 5
MA =
MC =
1 b =
1 = 0.995
4 L 4 35
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.995 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.995 )
Cb = 1.002
=
M n =
M p 5050 k-in
b M n =0.9 5050 /12
b M n =
378.75 k-ft

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1 L 1 11.667
MA =
MC =
1 b =
1 =
0.972
4 L 4 35

REVISION NO.: 0
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 )
Cb = 1.014
Lb L p
M n = C b M p (M p 0.7 Fy S 33 ) Mp
L L
r p
11.667 5.835
=M n 1.014 5050 ( 5050 0.7 50 88.889 ) = 4088.733 k-in
16.966 5.835
b M n =
0.9 4088.733 /12
b M n =
306.657 k-ft

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1 L 1 35
MA =
MC =
1 b =
1 = 0.750 .
4 L 4 35
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb = (1.00 )
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 )
Cb = 1.136

2
Cb 2 E Jc Lb
Fcr = 2
1 + 0.078
Lb S 33 ho rts
r
ts
1.136 2 29000 1.24 1 420

2
Fcr = 1 + 0.078 =
14.133ksi
420
2
88.889 17.4 1.983

1.983

REVISION NO.: 0
M n = Fcr S 33 M p
M n= 14.133 88.9= 1256.245 k-in
b M n =
0.9 1256.245 /12
b M n =
94.218 k-ft

REVISION NO.: 0
BUILT UP WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A demand capacity ratio is calculated for the built-up, ASTM A572 grade 50,
column shown below. An axial load of 70 kips (D) and 210 kips (L) is applied to
a simply supported column with a height of 15 ft.

Warping constant calculation, Cw
Member compression capacity with slenderness reduction

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Example E.2 AISC Design Examples, Volume 13.0 on the application of the 2005
AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10).
Percent
Compactness Slender Slender 0.00%
cPn (kips) 506.1 506.1 0.00 %
CONCLUSION

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: ASTM A572 Grade 50
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Section: Built-Up Wide Flange

d = 17.0 in, bf = 8.00 in, tf = 1.00 in, h = 15.0 in, tw = 0.250 in.
Ignoring fillet welds:
A = 2(8.00)(1.00) + (15.0)(0.250) = 19.75 in2

2(1.0)(8.0)3 (15.0)(0.25)3
Iy = + =85.35 in3
12 12
Iy 85.4
ry = = = 2.08 in.
A 19.8
I x = Ad 2 + I x
(0.250)(15.0)3 2(8.0)(1.0)3
I x = 2(8.0)(8.0) 2 + + = 1095.65 in 4
12 12
t1 + t2 1+1
d ' =
d =17 =16 in
2 2
Iy d '2 (85.35)(16.0) 2
= Cw = = 5462.583 in 4
4 4
bt 3
2(8.0)(1.0) 3 + (15.0)(0.250) 3
J = = = 5.41 in 4
3 3
Member:
K = 1.0 for a pinned-pinned condition
L = 15 ft
Loadings:
Pu = 1.2(70.0) + 1.6(210) = 420 kips
Check for slender elements using Specification Section E7

REVISION NO.: 0

b 4.0
=
= = 4.0
t 1.0
E 29000
= p 0.38
= 0.38 = 9.152
Fy 50
Flange is Compact.

h 15.0
== = 60.0 ,
t 0.250
E 29000
=r 1.49
= 1.49 = 35.9
Fy 50
> r , Localized web buckling
Web is Slender.
Section is Slender

Elastic Flexural Buckling Stress
Since the unbraced length is the same for both axes, the y-y axis will govern by
inspection.
KL y 1.0(15 12 )
= = 86.6
ry 2.08
2 E 2 29000
=Fe = = 38.18 ksi
(86.6 )
2 2
KL

r
Elastic Critical Torsional Buckling Stress

Note: Torsional buckling will not govern if KLy > KLz, however, the check is included
here to illustrate the calculation.

REVISION NO.: 0
2 EC 1
=Fe w
+ GJ
( K z L ) I x + I y
2
2 29000 5462.4 1
=Fe + 11200 5.41 = 91.8 ksi > 38.18 ksi
(180 ) 1100 + 85.4
2

Therefore, the flexural buckling limit state controls.
Fe = 38.18 ksi
Section Reduction Factors
Since the flange is not slender,

Qs = 1.0
Since the web is slender,

For equation E7-17, take f as Fcr with Q = 1.0
E 29000 KLy
4.71 =4.71 =113 > =86.6
QFy 1.0 ( 50 ) ry
So
QFy
1.0( 50 )

f = Fcr = Q 0.658 Fy = 1.0 0.658 38.2 50 = 28.9 ksi
Fe
0.34 E
E
be = 1.92t 1 b, where b = h
(b t ) f
f
29000 0.34 29000
be = 1.92 ( 0.250 ) 1 15.0in
28.9 (15.0 0.250 ) 28.9
=be 12.5in 15.0in
therefore compute Aeff with reduced effective web width.
Aeff =betw + 2b f t f =(12.5)( 0.250 ) + 2 (8.0 )(1.0 ) =19.1 in 2
where Aeff is effective area based on the reduced effective width of the web, be.

REVISION NO.: 0
Aeff 19.1
=
Qa= = 0.968
A 19.75
=Q Q=
s Qa (1.00 )( 0.968
= ) 0.968
Critical Buckling Stress
Determine whether Specification Equation E7-2 or E7-3 applies
E 29000 KLy
4.71 = 4.71 = 115.4 > = 86.6
QFy 0.966 ( 50 ) ry
Therefore, Specification Equation E7-2 applies.
E KL
When 4.71
QFy r
QFy
1.0( 50 )

=Fcr Q 0.658
= Fe
Fy 0.966 0.658
= 38.18
50 28.47 ksi

Nominal Compressive Strength
Pn =Fcr Ag =28.5 19.75 =562.3kips

c =0.90
c P=
n Fcr Ag= 0.90 ( 562.3=) 506.1kips > 420 kips
c Pn =
506.1kips

REVISION NO.: 0
AISC ASD-89 Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The beam below is subjected to a bending moment of 20 kip-ft. The compression
flange is braced at 3.0 ft intervals. The selected member is non-compact due to
flange criteria.

W6X12, M10X9, w = 1.0 klf Span, L = 12.65 ft
W8X10
E = 29000 ksi

Member bending capacity
AISC ASD-89 Example 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
Compactness Non-Compact Non-Compact 0.00%
Design Bending Stress, fb 30.74 30.74 0.00%

(ksi)
Allowable Bending Stress, 32.70 32.70 0.00 %

Fb (ksi)
COMPUTER FILE: AISC ASD-89 EX001
CONCLUSION
The results show an exact match with the independent results.

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Section: W8x10
bf = 3.94 in, tf = 0.205 in, d = 7.98 in, tw = 0.17 in
h = h 2t f = 7.89 2 0.205 = 7.48 in
Member:
L = 12.65 ft
lb = 3 ft
Loadings:
w = 1.0 k/ft
M=
wL2
8

= 1.0 12.652/8 = 20.0 k-ft
Design Bending Stress

f=
b M / S33= 20 12 / 7.8074
fb = 30.74 ksi
bf 3.94

= = = 9.610
2t f 2 0.205
65 65
p
= = = 9.192
Fy 50
95 95
r = = = 13.435
Fy 50

REVISION NO.: 0
> p , Localized flange buckling is present.

< r ,
Flange is Non-Compact.

d 7.89

= = = 46.412
tw 0.17
P f
No axial force is present, so f a= = 0 and a = 0 0.16,so
A Fy
640 f 640 0
=
p 1 3.74 a = 1 3.74 = 90.510
Fy F y 50 50

Web is Compact.
Section is Non-Compact.
Section Bending Capacity

Allowable Bending Stress
Since section is Non-Compact
bf
=
Fb 33 0.79 0.002 Fy Fy
2t f

Fb 33 = ( 0.79 0.002 9.61 )

50 50
Fb 33 = 32.70 ksi

REVISION NO.: 0

Critical Length, lc:
76b f 20,000 A f
l c = min ,
Fy dFy
76 3.94 20, 000 3.94 0.205

lc = min ,
50 7.89 50
lc = min {42.347, 40.948}
lc = 40.948 in
l22 =lb =3 12 =36 in
l 22 < l c , section capacity is as follows:
Fb 33 = 32.70 ksi

REVISION NO.: 0
AISC ASD-89 Example 002
WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The column design features for the AISC ASD-89 code are checked for the frame
shown below. This frame is presented in the Allowable Stress Design Manual of
Steel Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Pages 3-6 and 3-7. The
column K factors were overwritten to a value of 2.13 to match the example. The
transverse direction was assumed to be continuously supported. Two point loads
of 560 kips are applied at the tops of each column. The ratio of allow axial stress,
Fa, to the actual, fa, was checked and compared to the referenced design code.

Member compression capacity

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are taken from Allowable Stress Design Manual of Steel
Construction, Ninth Edition, 1989, Example 3, Pages 3-6 and 3-7.
Percent
Design Axial Stress, fa (ksi) 15.86 15.86 0.00%

Allowable Axial Stress, 16.47 16.47 0.00%
Fa (ksi)
COMPUTER FILE: AISC ASD-89 EX002
CONCLUSION

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: A36 Steel
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 36 ksi
Section: W12x120:
bf = 12.32 in, tf = 1.105 in, d =13.12 in, tw=0.71 in
A = 35.3 in2
rx=5.5056 in
Member:
K = 2.13
L = 15 ft
Loadings:
P = 560 kips
Design Axial Stress:
P 560
f=
a =
A 35.3
f a = 15.86 ksi
Compactness:
bf 12.32

= = = 5.575
2t f 2 1.105
65 65
p
= = = 10.83
Fy 36

Flange is Compact.

REVISION NO.: 0

f a 15.86
= = 0.44
Fy 36
d 13.12

= = = 18.48
tw 0.71
fa
Since = 0.44 > 0.16
Fy
257 257
p
= = = 42.83
Fy 36

Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.
Member Compression Capacity

KL x 2.13 (15 12 )
= = 69.638
rx 5.5056
22 E 22 29000
=Cc = = 126.099
Fy 36
KL x
rx 69.638
= = 0.552
Cc 126.099
KL x
< Cc
rx

REVISION NO.: 0
1 KL x rx
2

1.0 Fy
2 Cc
Fa = 3
5 3 KL x rx 1 KL x rx
+
3 8 C c 8 Cc
2
1.0 (0.552 ) 36
1
Fa =
2
+ (0.552 ) (0.552 )
5 3 1 3
3 8 8
Fa = 16.47 ksi

REVISION NO.: 0
AISC LRFD-93 Example 001
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
is loaded with an ultimate uniform load of 1.6 klf. The flexural moment capacity
is checked for three unsupported lengths in the weak direction, Lb = 4.375 ft,
11.667 ft and 35 ft.

W18X40 wu = 1.6 klf Span, L = 35 ft
E = 29000 ksi
Fy = 50 ksi

AISC LRFD-93 Example 001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are comparing with the results of Example 5.1 in the 2nd
Edition, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, pages 5-12 to 5-15.
Percent
Cb ( Lb =4.375ft) 1.008 1.002 0.60%
b M n ( Lb =4.375 ft) (k-ft) 294.000 294.000 0.00%
Cb ( Lb =11.67 ft) 1.010 1.014 -0.39%
b M n ( Lb = 11.67ft) (k-ft) 211.975 212.703 -0.34%
Cb ( Lb = 35ft) 1.136 1.136 0.00%
b M n ( Lb = 35ft) (k-ft) 50.599 50.599 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC LRFD-93 EX001
CONCLUSION

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
E = 29,000 ksi, Fy = 50 ksi
Fr = 10 ksi (for rolled shapes)
FL = Fy Fr = 50 10 = 40 ksi
Section: W18x40
hc = d 2t f = 17.9 2 0.525 = 16.85 in
A = 11.8 in2
S33 = 68.3799 in3, Z33 = 78.4 in3
Iy = 19.1 in4, ry = 1.2723 in
Cw = 1441.528 in6, J = 0.81 in4
Other:
L = 35 ft
b = 0.9
Loadings:
wu = 1.6 k/ft
Mu =
wu L2
8

= 1.6 352/8 = 245.0 k-ft
bf 6.02

= = = 5.733
2t f 2 0.525
65 65
p
= = = 9.192
Fy 50

REVISION NO.: 0

Flange is Compact.

hc 16.85

= = = 53.492
tw 0.315
640 640
p
= = = 90.510
Fy 50

Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.

Mp =Fy Z 33 =50 78.4 =3920 k-in

Critical Lengths:
EGJA 29000 11153.85 0.81 11.8
=X1 = = 1806 ksi
S33 2 68.3799 2
2 2
Cw S33 1441.528 68.3799
=X 2 4= 4 = 0.0173in 4
I 22 GJ 19.1 11153.85 0.81
300 r22 300 1.2723
=Lp = = 53.979in
= 4.498ft
Fy 50
X1
=
Lr r22 1 + 1 + X 2 FL 2
FL
1.27 1810
=
Lr 1 + 1 + 0.0172 40
= 2
= 12.069 ft
144.8in
40

REVISION NO.: 0

For the lateral-torsional buckling limit state, the non-uniform moment magnification
factor is calculated using the following equation:
12.5M max
Cb = Rm 3.0 Eqn. 1
2.5M max + 3M A + 4 M B + 3M C
where MA = first quarter-span moment, MB = mid-span moment, MC = second quarter-
span moment.
The required moments for Eqn. 1 can be calculated as a percentage of the maximum
mid-span moment. Since the loading is uniform and the resulting moment is symmetric:
2
1 L
M A = MC = 1 b
4 L

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1L 1 4.375
MA =
MC =
1 b =
1 =
0.996
4 L 4 35
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.996 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.996 )
Cb = 1.002
M n = M p = Fy Z 33 = 50 78.4 = 3920 < 1.5S33 Fy = 1.5 68.3799 50 = 5128.493k-in

b M n =0.9 3920 /12
b M n =
294.0 k-ft

REVISION NO.: 0

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1 L 1 11.667
MA =
MC =
1 b =
1 =
0.972
4 L 4 35
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb =
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.972 )
Cb = 1.014
Lb Lp
M=
n Cb M p ( M p F S )
L 33 Lr L p M p

11.667 4.486
M n 1.01 3920 ( 3920 40 68.4 )
= = 2836.042 k-in
12.06 4.486
b M n =0.9 2836.042 /12
b M n =
212.7031 k-ft

M=
max =
M B 1.00
2 2
1 L 1 35
MA =
MC =
1 b =
1 = 0.750 .
4 L 4 35
12.5 (1.00 )
Cb = (1.00 )
2.5 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 ) + 4 (1.00 ) + 3 ( 0.750 )
Cb = 1.136
M n = Fcr S 33 M p

REVISION NO.: 0
2
Cb E
=M cr EI 22GJ + I 22CW
Lb Lb
1.136 29000
2
=M cr 29000 19.1 11153.85 0.81 + 19.1 1441.528

35 12 35 12
=
M n =
M cr 674.655 k-in
b M n =0.9 674.655 /12
b M n =
50.599 k-ft

REVISION NO.: 0
AISC LRFD-93 Example 002
WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BIAXIAL BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A check of the column adequacy is checked for combined axial compression and
flexural loads. The column is 14 feet tall and loaded with an axial load,
Pu = 1400 kips and bending, M ux , M uy = 200k-ft and 70k-ft, respectively. It is
assumed that there is reverse-curvature bending with equal end moments about
both axes and no loads along the member. The column demand/capacity ratio is
checked against the results of Example 6.2 in the 3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of
Steel Construction, pages 6-6 to 6-8.

W14X176 Pu = 1,400 kips H = 14.0 ft
E = 29000 ksi Mux = 200 kip-ft
Fy = 50 ksi Muy = 70 kip-ft

Demand/capacity ratio, D/C

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Example 6.2 in the 3rd Edition, LRFD Manual of Steel Construction, pages 6-6 to
6-8.
Percent
c Pn (kips) 1937.84 1937.84 0.00%
b M nx (k-ft) 1200 1200 0.00%
b M ny (k-ft) 600.478 600.478 0.00%
D/C 0.974 0.974 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: AISC LRFD-93 EX002
CONCLUSION

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Fy = 50 ksi, E = 29,000 ksi
Section: W14x176
A = 51.8 in2,
hc = d 2t f = 15.2 2 1.31 = 12.58 in
Ix = 2,140 in4, Iy = 838 in4, rx = 6.4275 in, ry = 4.0221 in
Sx = 281.579 in3, Sy = 106.7516 in3, Zx = 320.0 in3, Zy = 163.0 in3.
Member:
Kx = Ky = 1.0
L = Lb = 14 ft
Other
c =0.85
b =0.9
Loadings:
Pu = 1400 kips
Mux = 200 k-ft
Muy = 70 k-ft
=
( b=
f / 2) (15.7 / 2)
= 5.99
tf 1.31
65 65
=
p = = 9.19
Fy 50
Flange is Compact.

REVISION NO.: 0

h 12.58
= c= = 15.16
tw 0.83
b Py =b Ag Fy =0.9 51.8 50 =
2331 kips
Pu 1400
= = 0.601
b Py 2331
Pu
Since = 0.601 > 0.125
b Py
191 P 253
=p 2.33 u
Fy b Py Fy
191 253
=
p ( 2.33 0.601
= ) 46.714 = 35.780
50 50
Web is Compact.
Section is Compact.
For braced frames, K = 1.0 and KxLx = KyLy = 14.0 ft, From AISC Table 4-2,
c Pn =
1940 kips
Or by hand,
K y L Fy 1.0 14 12 50
=c = = 0.552
ry E 4.022 29000
Since c < 1.5,
(
Fy 0.658c
Fcr =
2
)=
50 0.658 0.5522
=
44.012 ksi
c Pn =
c Fcr Ag =
0.85 44.012 51.8
c Pn =
1937.84 kips

REVISION NO.: 0
From LRFD Specification Section H1.2,
Pu 1400
= = 0.722 > 0.2
c Pn 1937.84
Therefore, LRFD Specification Equation H1-1a governs.

50 310
=
M px F=
yZx = 1333.333 k-ft
12
M py = Fy Z y
Zy 163
However,= = 1.527 > 1.5,
S y 106.7516
So
Zy = 1.5 S y =1.5 106.7516 =
160.1274in 3
50 160.1274
=M py = 667.198 k-ft
12
Member Bending Capacity
From LRFD Specification Equation F1-4,
E
L p = 1.76ry
Fyf
29000 1
L= 1.76 4.02 = 14.2 ft > L= 14 ft
p
50 12 b
b M nx =
b M px
b M nx =0.9 1333.333
b M nx =
1200 k-ft
b M ny =
b M py
b M ny =
0.9 667.198
b M ny =
600.478 k-ft

REVISION NO.: 0
Interaction Capacity: Compression & Bending
From LRFD Specification section C1.2, for a braced frame, Mlt = 0.
M ux = B1x M ntx , where M ntx = 200 kip-ft; and

M uy = B1 y M nty , where M nty = 70 kip-ft
Cm
B1 = 1
P
1 u
Pe1
For reverse curvature bending and equal end moments:
M1
= +1.0
M2
M
C m = 0.6 0.4 1
M2
C m = 0.6 0.4(1.0 ) = 0.2
2 EI
pe1 =
( KL )
2
2 29000 2140
=pe1x = 21, 702 kips
(14.0 12 )
2
2 29000 838
=pe1 y = 8, 498
(14.0 12 )
2
C mx
B1x = 1
Pu
1
Pe1x
0.2
=
B1x = 0.214 1
1400
1
21702

REVISION NO.: 0
B1x = 1
C my
B1 y = 1
P
1 u
P
e1 y
0.2
=
B1 y = 0.239 1
1400
1
8498
B1 y = 1
M ux = 1.0 200 = 200 kip-ft;
and
M uy = 1.0 70 = 70 kip-ft
From LRFD Specification Equation H1-1a,
1400 8 200 70
+ + =0.974 < 1.0 , OK
1940 9 1200 600.478
D
= 0.974
C

REVISION NO.: 0
BS 5950-2000 Example 001
WIDE FLANGE SECTION UNDER BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object moment and shear strength is tested in this example.
A simply supported beam is laterally restrained along its full length and is
subjected to a uniform factored load of 69 kN/m and a factored point load at the
mid-span of 136 kN. This example was tested using the BS 5950-2000 steel
frame design code. The moment and shear strengths are compared with
independent hand calculated results.
L=6.5 m
Material Properties Loading Design Properties

E = 205000 MPa W = 69 kN/m Ys = 275 MPa
v = 0.3 P = 136 kN Section: UB533x210x92
G = 78846.15 MPa

Section bending capacity
Section shear capacity
BS 5950-2000 Example 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
Compactness Class 1 Class 1 0.00%

Design Moment,
585.4 585.4 0.00%
M33 (kN-m)
Design Shear, Fv (kN) 292.25 292.25 0.00%
Moment Capacity,
649.0 649.0 0.00%
Mc (kN-m)
Shear Capacity, Pv (kN) 888.4 888.4 0.00%
COMPUTER FILE: BS 5950-2000 EX001
CONCLUSION
BS 5950-2000 Example 001 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
E = 205000 MPa
Ys = 275 MPa
y = 1.0 Ys = 275 MPa
Section: UB533x210x92
Ag = 11,700 mm2
D = 533.1 mm, b = 104.65 mm
t = 10.1 mm, T = 15.6 mm
d = D 2t = 533.1 2 10.1 = 501.9 mm
Z33 = 2,072,031.5 mm3
S33 = 2,360,000 mm3
Loadings:
Paxial = 0
wu = (1.4wd + 1.6wl) = 1.4(15) + 1.6(30) = 69 kN/m
Pu = (1.4Pd + 1.6Pl) = 1.4(40) + 1.6(50) = 136 kN
wu l 2 Pu l 69 6.52 136 6.5
Mu = + = +
8 4 8 4
M u = 585.4 kN-m
wu l + Pu 69 6.5 + 136
=Fv =
2 2
Fv = 292.25 kN
BS 5950-2000 Example 001 - 3

REVISION NO.: 0
P
=r1 = 0 (since there is no axial force)
dt y
P
=r2 = 0 (since there is no axial force)
Ag y
275 275
= = = 1
y 275

b 104.65
= = = 6.71
T 15.6
ep = 9 = 9
=
6.71 < =
p 9 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is Class 1.

d 501.9
= = = 49.69
t 10.1
Since r1 = r2 = 0 and there is no axial compression:
p= 80= 80
= 49.69 <=
p 80 , No localized web buckling
Web is Class 1.
Section is Class 1.
BS 5950-2000 Example 001 - 4

REVISION NO.: 0
Section Shear Capacity:

Av 2 =Dt =533.1 10.1 =5,384.31mm 2
Pv 2 = 0.6 y Av 2 = 0.6 275 5384.31
Pv 2 = 888.4 kN

With Shear Reduction:
0.6 P
=v2 533 kN > =
Fv 292.3kN
So no shear reduction is needed in calculating the bending capacity.
M c = y S33 1.2 y Z 33 = 275 2,360, 000 1.2 275 2, 072, 031.5
=M c 649 kN-m 683.77 kN-m
M c = 649 kN-m
BS 5950-2000 Example 001 - 5

REVISION NO.: 0
BS 5950-2000 Example 002
SQUARE TUBE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION & BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial and moment strengths are tested in this example.
A continuous column is subjected to 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 independent
hand calculated results.
Mx
My
H
A A
Section A-A
H=5m

E = 205000 MPa N = 640 kN Ys = 355 MPa
v = 0.3 Mx = 10.5 kN-m
G = 78846.15 MPa My = 0.66 kN-m
Section compactness check (compression & bending)
Section bending capacity
BS 5950-2000 Example 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

Axial Capacity,
773.2 773.2 0.00%
Pc (kN)
Bending Capacity, 68.3 68.3 0.00%
Mc (kN-m)
COMPUTER FILE: BS 5950-2000 EX002
CONCLUSION
BS 5950-2000 Example 002 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material:
E = 205000 MPa
G = 78846.15 MPa
Ys = 355 MPa
y = 1.0 Ys = 355 MPa
Section: RHS 150x150x6.3:
Ag = 3580 mm2
D = B = 150 mm, T=t = 6.3 mm
b = B 3 t = d = D 3 T = 150 2 6.3 = 131.1mm
r33 = 58.4483 mm
Z33 = 163,066.7 mm3
S33 = 192,301.5 mm3
Loadings:
N = 640 kN
Mx = 10.5 kN-m
My = 0.66 kN-m
Fv33 = Mx/H = 10.5 / 5 = 2.1 kN
P 640
=r1 = = 0.002183
dt y 131 6.3 355
275 275
= = = 0.880
y 355
BS 5950-2000 Example 002 - 3

REVISION NO.: 0

b 131.1
= = = 20.81
T 6.3
d 131.1
p= 28 < 80 = 28 0.880 < 80 0.880
t 6.3
=
p 24.6 < 49.6
= 20.81 <=
p 24.6 , No localized flange buckling
Flange is Compact.

d 131.1
= = = 20.81 :
t 6.3
64 64 0.88
=
p < 40
= < 40 0.88
= 56.3 > 35.2
1 + 0.6r1 1 + 0.6 0.002183
So p =35.2
= 20.81 <=
p 35.2 , No localized web buckling
Web is compact.
Section is Compact.

l K l 1.0 5000
22 = 33 =e 33 = 33 33 = =85.546
r33 r33 58.4483
= max { 22 , =
33 } 85.546
2 E 2 205000
= o 0.2= 0.2 = 15.1
y 355
Robertson Constant: a = 2.0 (from Table VIII-3 for Rolled Box Section in CSI
code documentation)
=
Perry Factor: 0.001a ( =
0 ) 0.001 2 ( 85.546 15.1
= ) 0.141
BS 5950-2000 Example 002 - 4

REVISION NO.: 0
2 E 2 205000
Euler Strength: = = = 276.5 MPa
2
E
85.5462
y + ( + 1) E 355 + ( 0.141 + 1) 276.5
= = = 355.215 MPa
2 2
E y 276.5 355
=c = = 215.967 MPa
+ 2 E y 335.215 + 335.2152 276.5 355
= g c
Pc A= 3580 215.967
Pc = 773.2 kN

y = 1.0 Ys = 275 MPa
D 150
Av =
Ag =3580 =1790 mm 2
D + B 150 + 150
Pv = 0.6 y Av 2 = 0.6 355 1790
Pv = 381.3kN

With Shear Reduction
0.6=
Pv 228.8 kN=
> Fv 2.1kN
So no shear reduction is needed in calculating the bending capacity.
Mc =
y S33 1.2 y Z 33 =
355 192,301.5 1.2 355 163, 066.7
=M c 68.3kN-m 69.5 kN-m
M c = 68.3kN-m
With LTB Reduction

Not considered since the section is square.
BS 5950-2000 Example 002 - 5

REVISION NO.: 0
EN 3-2005 Example 001
WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example considering in-plane
behavior only.
A continuous column is subjected to factored load N = 210 kN and My,Ed = 43

kN-m. This example was tested using the Eurocode 3-2005 steel frame design
code. The design capacities are compared with independent hand calculated
results.
NEd
My,Ed
L
A A
Section A-A
L = 3.5 m

E = 210x103 MPa N = 210 kN fy = 235 MPa
v = 0.3 My,Ed = 43 kN-m Section: IPE 200
G = 80770 MPa
Section compactness check (beam-column)
Member interaction capacities, D/C, Method 1
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
Independent results are taken from hand calculations based on the CSI steel
design documentation contained in the file SFD-EC-3-2005.pdf, which is
available through the program Help menu. This example was taken from "New
design rules in EN 1993-1-1 for member stability," Worked example 1 in section
5.2.1, page 151.
Percent
D/CAxial 0.334 0.334 0.00%
D/CBending 0.649 0.646 0.46%
COMPUTER FILE: EN 3-2005 EX001
CONCLUSION
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: S235
fy = 235 MPa
E = 210,000 MPa
G = 80,770 MPa
Section: IPE 200
A = 2848 mm2
h = 200 mm, bf = 100 mm, tf = 8.5 mm, tw = 5.6 mm, r = 12 mm
hw = h 2t f = 200 2 85 = 183mm
b f tw 2r 100 5.6 2 12
=c = = 35.2 mm
2 2
Iyy = 19,430,000 mm4
Wel,y = 194,300 mm3
Wpl,y = 220,600 mm3
Member:
Lyy = Lzz = 3,500 mm (unbraced length)
M 0 =
1
M1 =
1
y = 0.21
Loadings:
N Ed = 210, 000 N
M Ed , y ,Left = 0 N-m
M Ed , y ,Right = 43000 N-m
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 3

REVISION NO.: 0
235 235
= = = 1
fy 235
1 N Ed
1 =
1 1
2 2htw f y
1 210, 000
=
1 = 0.6737
2 2 200 5.6 235

For the tip in compression under combined bending and compression
9 9 1
cl .1 = = = 13.36
0.6737
c 35.2
e = = = 4.14
tf 8.5
=
e 4.14 < =
cl .1 13.36
So Flange is Class 1 in combined bending and compression

> 0.5, so
396 396 1
= = = 51.05 for combined bending & compression
13 1 13 0.6737 1
cl .1
d 183
e = = = 28.39
tw 5.6
=
e 32.68 < =
cl .1 51.05
So Web is Class 1 in combined bending and compression
Since Flange and Web are Class 1, Section is Class 1.
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 4

REVISION NO.: 0
Section Compression Capacity:

N c , Rk = Af y = 2.848 103 235 106 = 669 kN

2 EI 22 2 210000 106 19.43 106
=
N cr ,22 = = 3287 kN
L2 3.52

M pl , y , Rk= W pl , y f y= 220.6 106 235 106= 51.8 kN-m
Interaction Capacities - Method 1:

Member Bending & Compression Capacity with Buckling
Compression Buckling Factors
Af y 2.858 103 235 106
=
y = = 0.451
N cr , y 3287 103
y 0.5 1 + y ( y 0.2 ) + =
= 2
y
0.5 1 + 0.21 ( 0.451 0.2 ) + 0.451
=2
0.628
1 1
=
y = = 0.939 1
y y ( y ) (
+ 2 2 0.628 + 0.6282 0.4512
)
Auxiliary Terms
N Ed
1 1
210
N cr , y 3287
=y = = 0.996
N Ed 210
1 y 1 0.939
N cr , y 3287
W pl , y 220.6 106
=
wy = = 1.135 1.5
Wel , y 194.3 106
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 5

REVISION NO.: 0
Cmo Factor
M Ed , y ,right 0
=
y = = 0
M Ed , y ,left 43 103
0.79 + 0.21 y + 0.36 ( y 0.33)

N Ed
Cmy=
,0
N cr , y
210
Cmy =
,0 0.79 + 0.21 0 + 0.36 ( 0 0.33) = 0.782
3287
=
Cmy C=
my ,0 0.782 because no LTB is likely to occur.
Elastic-Plastic Bending Resistance
Because LTB is prevented, bLT = 0 so aLT = 0

1.6 N
1 + ( wy 1) 2
1.6
C yy = Cmy 2 22 Cmy 2 y 2 Ed bLT
wy wy N c , Rk

M1

1.6 1.6 210 10
3
1 + (1.135 1) 2
C yy = 0.7822 0.451 0.7822 0.4512 0
1.135 669 10
3
1.135
1.0
Wel , y 194.3 106

C yy = 1.061 = = 0.881
W pl , y 220.6 106
N Ed 210 103
=
D / CAxial =
N c , Rk 669 103
y 0.939
M1 1
D / CAxial = 0.334
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 6

REVISION NO.: 0

Cmy M Ed , y ,right 0.782 43 10 3

D / CBending =
y =
0.996
210 10
3
51.8 10 3
1 N Ed C M pl , y , Rk 1 3
1.061
N cr , y yy M 1 3287 10 1

D / CBending = 0.646
D / CTotal = 0.980
EN 3-2005 Example 001 - 7

REVISION NO.: 0
WIDE FLANGE SECTION UNDER BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
The frame object axial strengths are tested in this example.
A beam is subjected to factored load N = 1050 kN. This example was tested
using the Eurocode 3-2005 steel frame design code. The design capacities are
compared with independent hand calculated results.
NEd
A
A
L/2 L/2 Section A-A
L = 1.4 m

E = 210x103 MPa N = 1050 kN fy = 275 MPa
v = 0.3 Section: 406x178x74 UB
G = 80770 MPa

Section compactness (beam)
Section bending capacity with shear reduction
EN 3-2005 Example 002 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file SFD-EC-3-2005.pdf, which is
available through the program Help menu. Examples were taken from Example
6.5 on pp. 53-55 from the book Designers Guide to EN1993-1-1 by R.S.
Narayanan & A. Beeby.
Percent

Section Shear Resistance,
689.2 689.2 0.00%
Vpl,Rd (kN)
Section Bending Resistance,
412.8 412.8 0.00%
Mc,y,Rd (kN-m)
Section Shear-Reduced Bending
386.8 386.8 0.00%
Resistance, Mv,y,Rd (kN-m)
CONCLUSION
EN 3-2005 Example 002 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: S275 Steel
fy = 275 MPa
E = 210000 MPa
Section: 406x178x74 UB
A = 9450 mm2
b = 179.5 mm, tf = 16 mm, h = 412.8 mm, tw = 9.5 mm, r = 10.2 mm
hw = h 2t f = 412.8 2 16 = 380.8 mm
d = h 2 ( t f + r ) = 412.8 2 (16 + 10.2 ) = 360.4 mm
b tw 2r 179.5 9.5 2 10.2

=c = = 74.8 mm
2 2
Wpl,y = 501,000 mm3
Other:
M 0 = 1.0
= 1.2
Loadings:
N Ed = 0 kN
N = 1050 kN @ mid-span
Results in the following internal forces:
VEd = 525 kN
M Ed = 367.5 kN-m
EN 3-2005 Example 002 - 3

REVISION NO.: 0
235 235
= = = 0.924
fy 275

cl .1 = 9 = 9 0.924 = 8.32 for pure compression
c 74.8
e = = = 4.68
tf 16
=
e 4.68 < =
cl .1 8.32
So Flange is Class 1 in pure compression

cl .1= 72= 72 0.924= 66.56 for pure bending
d 360.4
e = = = 37.94
tw 9.5
=
e 37.94 < =
cl .1 66.56
So Web is Class 1 in pure bending
Since Flange & Web are Class 1, Section is Class 1.
Section Shear Capacity

Av min = h wtw = 1.2 380.8 9.5 = 4341mm 2
Av = A 2bt f + (tw + 2r )t f = 9450 2 179.5 16 + ( 9.5 + 2 10.2 ) 16
=Av 4021.2 mm 2 < Av min
So Av = 4341mm 2
EN 3-2005 Example 002 - 4

REVISION NO.: 0
Av f y 4341 275
= = = 689, 245 N
M 0 3 1.0 3
V pl , Rd
V pl , Rd = 689.2 kN

W pl , y f y 1501, 000 275
=
M = = 412, 775, 000 N-mm
c , y , Rd
M0 1
M c , y , Rd = 412.8 kN-m

2
2VEd 2 525 2
=
1= 1= 0.27
V pl , Rd 689.2

Aw = hwtw = 380.8 9.5 = 3617.6 mm 2
fy Aw 2 275 0.27 3617.62

=
M v , y , Rd W = 1,501, 000
M 0 pl , y 4tw 1.0 4 9.5
M v , y , Rd = 386,829, 246 N-mm
M v , y , Rd = 386.8 kN-m
EN 3-2005 Example 002 - 5

REVISION NO.: 0
WIDE FLANGE SECTION UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A continuous beam-column is subjected to factored axial load P = 1400 kN and

major-axis bending moment M = 200 kN-m. This example was tested using the
Eurocode 3-2005 steel frame design code. The design capacities are compared
with independent hand calculated results.
A M
A
L Section A-A
L = 0.4 m

E = 210x103 MPa P = 1400 kN fy = 235 MPa
v = 0.3 M = 200 kN-m Section: 457x191x98 UB
G = 80769 MPa

Section compactness check (beam-column)
Section compression capacity
Section bending capacity with compression reduction
EN 3-2005 Example 003 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file SFD-EC-3-2005.pdf, which is also
available through the program Help menu. Examples were taken from Example
6.6 on pp. 57-59 from the book Designers Guide to EN1993-1-1 by R.S.
Narayanan & A. Beeby.
Percent

Section Compression Resistance,
2937.5 2937.5 0.00%
Npl,Rd (kN)
Section Plastic Bending Resistance,
524.1 524.5 -0.08%
Mpl,y,Rd (kN-m)
Section Reduced Bending Resistance, -0.09%
341.9 342.2
Mn,y,Rd (kN-m)
CONCLUSION
EN 3-2005 Example 003 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: S275 Steel
E = 210000 MPa
fy = 235 MPa
Section: 457x191x98 UB
A = 12,500 mm2
b = 192.8 mm, tf = 19.6 mm, h = 467.2 mm, tw = 11.4 mm, r = 10.2 mm
hw = h 2t f = 467.2 2 19.6 = 428 mm
d = h 2 ( t f + r ) = 467.2 2 (19.6 + 10.2 ) = 407.6 mm
b tw 2r 192.8 11.4 2 10.2

=c = = 80.5 mm
2 2
Wpl,y = 2,232,000 mm3
Other:
M 0 =
1.0
Loadings:
P = 1400 kN axial load
Results in the following internal forces:
N Ed = 1400 kN
M = 200 kN-m
235 235
= = = 1
fy 235
EN 3-2005 Example 003 - 3

REVISION NO.: 0
1 N Ed
1 = 1 1
2 2htw f y
1 1, 400, 000
=
1 = 2.7818 > 1, so
2 2 467.2 11.4 235
=1.0

For the tip in compression under combined bending & compression
9 9 1
cl .1 = = = 9
1
c 80.5
e = = = 4.11
t f 19.6
=
e 4.11 < =
cl .1 9
So Flange is Class 1 in combined bending and compression

> 0.5, so
396 396 1
= = = 33.00 for combined bending & compression
13 1 13 1 1
cl .1
d 407.6
e = = = 35.75
tw 11.4
=
e 35.75 > =
cl .1 33.00
456 456 1
= = = 38.00
13 1 13 1 1
cl .2
=
e 35.75 <
= cl .2 38.00
So Web is Class 2 in combined bending & compression.
EN 3-2005 Example 003 - 4

REVISION NO.: 0
Since Web is Class 2, Section is Class 2 in combined bending & compression.
Section Compression Capacity

Af y 12,500 235
N pl= =
M 0
, Rd
1
N pl , Rd = 2937.5 kN

W pl , y f y 2, 232, 000 235
M= =
M 0
pl , y , Rd
1
M pl , y , Rd = 524.5 kN-m
Axial Reduction
N Ed =
1400kN > 0.25 N pl , Rd =
0.25 2937.5 =
734.4 kN
hwtw f y 428 11.4 235

N Ed =
1400kN > 0.5 =
0.5 =
573.3kN
M 0 1
So moment resistance must be reduced.
N Ed 1400
=n = = 0.48
N pl , Rd 2937.5
A 2bt f 12,500 2 192.8 19.6
=a = = 0.40
A 12,500
1 n 1 0.48
M N= M pl , y , Rd = 524.5
1 0.5a 1 0.5 0.4
, y , Rd
M N , y , Rd = 342.2 kN-m
EN 3-2005 Example 003 - 5

REVISION NO.: 0
IS 800-2007 Example 001
WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMPRESSION
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A continuous column is subjected to factored load N = 1 kN. This example was

tested using the Indian IS 800:2007 steel frame design code. The design
capacities are compared with independent hand calculated results.
NEd
L
A A
Section A-A
L = 3m

E = 200x103 MPa N = 1 kN fy = 250 MPa
v = 0.3 fu = 410 MPa
G = 76923 MPa Section: ISMB 350

Section compactness check (column)
IS 800-2007 Example 001 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file SFD-IS-800-2007.pdf, which is
available through the program Help menu. The example was taken from
Example 9.2 on pp. 765-766 in Design of Steel Structures by N. Subramanian.
Percent
Compactness Plastic Plastic 0.00%
Design Axial Strength, Ncrd 733.85 734.07 -0.03%
COMPUTER FILE: IS 800-2007 EX001
CONCLUSION
IS 800-2007 Example 001 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: Fe 250
E = 200,000 MPa
fy = 250 MPa
Section: ISMB 350
A = 6670 mm2
b = 140 mm, tf = 14.2 mm, h = 350 mm, tw = 8.1 mm, r = 1.8 mm
d =h 2 ( t f + r ) =350 2 (14.2 + 1.8 ) =318 mm
ry = 28.4 mm, rz = 143 mm

Member:
KLy = KLz = 3,000 mm (unbraced length)
M 0 =
1.1
Loadings:
N Ed = 1 kN
250 250
= = = 1
fy 250

=
p 8.4= 8.4 =
1 8.4
b 70
e = = = 4.93
t f 14.2
=
e 4.93 <
= p 8.40
So Flange is Plastic in compression
IS 800-2007 Example 001 - 3

REVISION NO.: 0

p= N / A & s= 42= 42 for compression
d 318
e = = = 39.26
tw 8.1
=
e 39.26 < =
s 42
So Web is Plastic in compression
Since Flange & Web are Plastic, Section is Plastic.
Non-Dimensional Slenderness Ratio:

h 350
= = 2.5 > 1.2
b f 140
and
=t f 14.2 mm < 40 mm
So we should use the Buckling Curve a for the z-z axis and Buckling Curve b
for the y-y axis (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7).
Z-Z Axis Parameters:

For buckling curve a, =0.21 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)
2 E 2 200, 000
=
Euler Buckling Stress: f cc = 2
= 2
4485 MPa
K z Lz 3, 000

rz 143
fy 250
=
z = = 0.2361
f cc 4485
IS 800-2007 Example 001 - 4

REVISION NO.: 0
= 0.5 1 + ( 0.2 ) + =
2 0.5 1 + 0.21( 0.2361 0.2 ) + 0.23612
=0.532
1 1
=
Stress Reduction Factor: = = 0.9920
+
2 2
0.532 + 0.5322 0.23612
fy 250
f cd , z =
=
0.992 =
255.5 MPa
M 0 1.1
Y-Y Axis Parameters:

For buckling curve b, =0.34 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)
2 E 2 200, 000
=
Euler Buckling Stress: f cc = 2
= 2
177 MPa
K z Lz 3, 000

rz 28.4
fy 250

= y = = 1.189
f cc 177
= 0.5 1 + ( 0.2 ) + =
2 0.5 1 + 0.34 (1.189 0.2 ) + 1.1892
=1.375
1 1
=
Stress Reduction Factor: = = 0.4842
+
2 2
1.375 + 1.3752 1.1892
fy 250
f cd , y =
=
0.4842 =
110.1MPa Governs
M 0 1.1
=
Pd Af=
cd , y 6670 110.1
Pd = 734.07 kN
IS 800-2007 Example 001 - 5

REVISION NO.: 0
IS 800-2007 Example 002
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A continuous beam is subjected to factored distributed load w = 48.74 kN/m.

This example was tested using the Indian IS 800:2007 steel frame design code.
The design capacities are compared with independent hand calculated results.
Section A-A
L1 L2 L3 A
w
L1 = 4.9 m L2 = 6 m L3 = 4.9 m
E = 200x103 MPa w = 48.74 kN/m fy = 250 MPa
v = 0.3 Section: ISLB 500
G = 76923 MPa
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 1

REVISION NO.: 0

Section compactness check (beam)
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file SFD-IS-800-2007.pdf, which is
Example 10.8 on pp. 897-901 in Design of Steel Structures by N. Subramanian.
The torsional constant, It, is calculated by the program as a slightly different
value, which accounts for the percent different in section bending resistance.
Percent

152.71 152.97 -0.17%
Md(LTB) (kN-m)
603.59 603.59 0.00%
Vd (kN)
CONCLUSION
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 2

REVISION NO.: 0
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: Fe 250
E = 200,000 MPa
G = 76,923 MPa
fy = 250 MPa
Section: ISLB 500

A = 9550 mm2
h = 500 mm, bf = 180 mm, tf = 14.1 mm, tw = 9.2 mm, r = 17 mm,
b f 180
=
b = = 90 mm
2 2
d =h 2 ( t f + r ) =500 2 (14.1 + 17 ) =437.8 mm
Iz = 385,790,000 mm4, Iy = 10,600,000 mm4

Zez = 1,543,000 mm3, Zpz = 1,770,800 mm3
ry = 33.3159 mm
Member:
Lleft = 4.9 m
Lcenter = 6 m (governs)
Lright = 4.9 m
KLy = KLz = 6,000 mm (unbraced length)
M 0 = 1.1
Loadings:
N Ed = 0 kN
= 48.75 kN / m
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 3

REVISION NO.: 0
250 250
= = = 1
fy 250
r1 =0 since there is no axial force

p= 9.4= 9.4 1= 9.4
b 90
=
e = = 6.38
t f 14.1
e = 6.38 < p = 9.40

So Flange is Plastic in pure bending

84 84 1
p
= = = 84
(1 + r1 ) (1 + 0)
d 437.8
=
e = = 47.59
tw 9.2
e= 47.59 < p= 84.00
So Web is Plastic in pure bending
Since Flange & Web are Plastic, Section is Plastic.

fy 250
Vd= htw= 500 9.2
M0 3 1.1 3
Vd = 603.59 kN
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 4

REVISION NO.: 0
Member Bending Capacity

h f =h t f =500 14.1 =485.9
d t 3 2 180 14.13 485.9 9.23

3
bi ti 3 2b f t f
I t = = + iw = + =4.63 105 mm 4
3 3 3 3 3
I fc
f =
I fc + I ft
Ifc = Compression Flange moment of inertia

Ift = Tension Flange moment of inertia
Section is symmetric so Ifc = Ift, so f = 0.5
I w =(1 f ) f I y h f 2 =(1 0.5) 0.5 10, 600, 000 485.92 =6.257 1011 mm6
C1 = 1.0 (Assumed in example & specified in SAP)
2 EI y 2 EI w
=M cr C1 GI +
( KL ) ( KL )
2 t 2
2 200, 000 10, 600, 000 2 200, 000 6.257 1011

M cr 1.0 76,923 462,508 +
( 6, 000 )
2
( 6, 000 )
2

=M cr 201,536, 272.8 N mm
LT = 0.21
b = 1.0
b Z pz f y 1 1, 770,800 250
=LT = = 1.48
M cr 201,536, 272.8
LT = 0.5 1 + LT ( LT 0.2 ) + LT 2 = 0.5 1 + 0.21 (1.48 0.2 ) + 1.482 LT = 1.7329
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 5

REVISION NO.: 0
1
= LT 1.0
LT + LT 2 + LT 2
1
LT
= = 0.380 1.0
1.7329 + 1.73292 + 1.482
LT f y 0.38 250
=
fbd = = 86.4 MPa
M0 1.1
M sd= Z pz fbd= 1770.8 103 86.4

= 152,969, 236 N mm
=M sd 152.97 kN m
IS 800-2007 Example 002 - 6

REVISION NO.: 1
IS 800-2007 Example 003
WIDE FLANGE MEMBER UNDER COMBINED COMPRESSION & BIAXIAL BENDING
EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION
In this example a beam-column is subjected factored distributed load N = 2500

kN, Mz = 350 kN-m, and My = 100 kN-m. The element is moment-resisting in
the z-direction and pinned in the y-direction. This example was tested using the
Indian IS 800:2007 steel frame design code. The design capacities are compared
with independent hand calculated results.

Y-Axis Z-Axis
Y-Y
My,top
Mz,top
Z-Z
L N
A A
Mz,bot
My,bot Section A-A
L=4m

E = 200x103 MPa N = 2500 kN fy = 250 MPa
v = 0.3 Mz,top = 350 kN-m Section: W310x310x226
G = 76923.08 MPa Mz,bot = -350 kN-m
My,top = 100 kN-m
My,bot = 0
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 1

REVISION NO.: 1

Section Compactness Check (Beam-Column)
Section Compression Capacity
Section Shear Capacity for Major & Minor Axes
Section Bending Capacity for Major & Minor Axes
Member Compression Capacity for Major & Minor Axes
Member Bending Capacity for Major & Minor Axes
Interaction Capacity, D/C, for Major & Minor Axes
RESULTS COMPARISON
design documentation contained in the file SFD-IS-800-2007.pdf, which is also
Example 13.2 on pp. 1101-1106 in Design of Steel Structures by N.
Subramanian.
Percent
Plastic Compression Resistance,
6564 6564 0.00%
Nd (kN)
Buckling Resistance in Compression,
6555 6555 0.00%
Pdz (kN)
Buckling Resistance in Compression,
5324.01 5324.01 0.00%
Pdy (kN)
897.46 897.46 0.00%
Mdz (kN-m)
325.72 325.72 0.00%
Mdy (kN-m)
Buckling Resistance in Bending,
886.76 886.76 0.00%
MdLTB (kN-m)
1009.2 1009.2 0.00%
VPz (kN)
2961.6 2961.6 0.00%
VPy (kN)
Interaction Capacity, D/C 1.048 1.048 0.00%
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 2

REVISION NO.: 1
CONCLUSION
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 3

REVISION NO.: 1
HAND CALCULATION
Properties:
Material: Fe 410
E = 200,000 MPa
G = 76,923.08 MPa
fy = 250 MPa
Section: W310x310x226
A = 28,880 mm2
bf = 317 mm, tf = 35.6 mm, h = 348 mm, tw = 22.1 mm, r = 15 mm
b f 317
=
b = = 158.5 mm ,
2 2
d =h 2 ( t f + r ) =348 2 ( 35.6 + 15 ) =246.8 mm
Iz = 595,600,000 mm4, Iy = 189,300,000 mm4

rz = 143.608 mm, ry = 80.961 mm
Zez = 3,422,988.581 mm3, Zey = 1,194,321.738 mm3
Zpz = 3,948,812.012 mm3, Zpy = 1,822,501.953 mm3
It = 10,530,854 mm6, Iw = 4.619 1012 mm6
Member:
Ly = Lz = 4,000 mm (unbraced length)
M 0 = 1.1
Loadings:
P = 2500 kN
Vz = 25 kN
Vy = 175 kN
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 4

REVISION NO.: 1
=
M z 1 350 kN m
M z 2 =
350 kN m
=
M y 1 100 kN m
M=
y 2 0 kN m
fy 250
= = = 1
250 250
P 2,500, 000
=r1 = = 2.01676
fy 2.5
dtw 246.8 22.1
mo 1.1
p= 9.4= 9.4 1= 9.4
b 158.5
=
e = = 4.45
tf 35.6
e = 4.45 < p = 9.40

So Flange is Plastic in pure bending

84 84 1
=p = = 27.84
(1 + r1 ) (1 + 2.01676)
d 246.8
=
e = = 11.20
tw 22.1
e= 11.20 < p= 27.84
So Web is Plastic in bending & compression
Section is Plastic.
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 5

REVISION NO.: 1
Section Compression Capacity:

Ag f y 28880 250
=
Nd =
M0 1.1
N d = 6564 kN

For major z-z axis
Avz =htw =348 22.1 =7690.8 mm 2
fy 250
=
VPz = Avz 7690.8
M0 3 1.1 3
VPz = 1009.2 kN
For minor y-y axis
Avy =2b f t f =
2 317 35.6 =22,570.4 mm 2
fy 250
=
VPy = Avy 22570.4
M0 3 1.1 3
VPy = 2961.6 kN

For major z-z axis
b Z pz f y 1 3,948,812.012 250 1.2Z ez f y 1.2 3, 422,988.581 250
M dz = = =
M0 1.1 M0 1.1
=
M dz 897.46 kN m 933.54 kN m
=M dz 897.46 kN m
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 6

REVISION NO.: 1
For minor y-y axis
b Z py f y 1 1,822,501.953 250 1.2Z ey f y 1.2 1,194,321.738 250

M dy = = =
M0 1.1 M0 1.1
=
M dy 414.20 kN m 325.72 kN m
=M dy 325.72 kN m

For major z-z axis
Vz =
25 kN < 0.6VPz =
0.6 1009.2 =
605.5 kN No shear reduction is needed.
For minor y-y axis
Vy =
175 kN < 0.6VPy =
0.6 2961.6 =
1777 kN No shear reduction is needed.
With Compression Reduction:

P 2500
=
n = = 0.381
N d 6564
For major z-z axis

M ndz = 1.11M dz (1 n ) = 1.11 897.46 (1 0.381) M dz
=
M ndz 616.7 kN m < 897.46 kN m
For minor y-y axis, since n > 0.2

M ndy = 1.56 M dy (1 n )( n + 0.6 ) = 1.56 325.72 (1 0.381)( 0.381 + 0.6 )
=
M ndy 308.6 kN m
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 7

REVISION NO.: 1

Non-Dimensional Slenderness Ratio:
h 348
= = 1.1 < 1.2
b f 317
and
=t f 35.6 mm < 40 mm
So we should use the Buckling Curve b for the z-z axis and Buckling Curve c for the
y-y axis (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7).
Z-Z Axis Parameters:
For buckling curve b, = 0.34 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)
K z = 0.65
K z Lz 2600
K z Lz =0.65 4000 =2600 mm, = =18.1
rz 143.608
2E 2 200, 000
=
Euler Buckling Stress: f cr , z = = 6022 MPa
(18.1)
2 2
K z Lz

rz
fy 250
=z = = 0.2038
f cr , z 6022
z = 0.5 1 + z ( z 0.2 ) + z 2 = 0.5 1 + 0.34 ( 0.2038 0.2 ) + 0.20382
z = 0.5214
1 1
=
Stress Reduction Factor: z = = 0.9987
z + z z
2 2
0.5214 + 0.52142 0.20382
fy 250
f cd , z= = 0.9987 = 226.971 MPa
M0 1.1
=
Pdz f=
cd , z Ag 226.971 28,880
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 8

REVISION NO.: 1
Pdz = 6555 kN
Y-Y Axis Parameters:

For buckling curve c, = 0.49 (IS 7.1.1, 7.1.2.1, Table 7)
K y = 1.00
K y Ly 4000
K y Ly =
1 4000 =
4000 mm, = =
49.41
ry 80.961
2E 2 200, 000
=
Euler Buckling Stress: f cr , y = = 809 MPa
( 49.41)
2 2
K y Ly

ry
fy 250
y
= = = 0.5560
f cr , y 809
y = 0.5 1 + y ( y 0.2 ) + y 2 = 0.5 1 + 0.49 ( 0.5560 0.2 ) + 0.55602
y = 0.7418
1 1
=
Stress Reduction Factor: y = = 0.8111
y + y y
2 2
0.7418 + 0.74182 0.55602
fy 250
f cd , y= = 0.8111 = 184.349 MPa
M0 1.1
=
Pdy f=
cd , y Ag 184.349 28,880
Pdy = 5324 kN
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 9

REVISION NO.: 1
Member Bending Capacity:

C1 = 2.7 (Program Calculation from AISC equation, where C1 < 2.7 )
2 EI y 2 EI w
=M cr C1 GI +
( KL ) ( KL )
2 t 2
2 200, 000 189,300, 000 2 200, 000 4.619 1012

M cr 2.7 76,923.08 10,530,854 +
( 4, 000 )
2
( 4, 000 )
2

=M cr 15,327, 440,800 N mm
LT = 0.21
b = 1.0
b Z pz f y 1 3,948,812 250
=LT = = 0.2538
M cr 15,327, 440,800
LT = 0.5 1 + LT ( LT 0.2 ) + LT 2 = 0.5 1 + 0.21 ( 0.2538 0.2 ) + 0.25382

LT = 0.5379
1
= LT 1.0
LT + LT 2 + LT 2
1
LT
= = 0.9881 1.0
0.5379 + 0.53792 + 0.25382
LT f y 0.9881 250
=
fbd = = 224.56 MPa
M0 1.1
M dLTB = Z pz fbd = 3,948,812.012 224.56 = 886, 760, 436 N mm
=
M dLTB 886.76 kN m
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 10

REVISION NO.: 1
Interaction Capacity: Compression & Bending

Member Bending & Compression Capacity with Buckling
Z-Z Axis
P 2500
=
nz = = 0.3814
Pdz 6555
K z = 1 + ( z 0.2 ) nz = 1 + ( 0.2038 0.2 ) 0.3814 1 + 0.8nz = 1 + 0.8 ( 0.3814 )

=
K z 1.0014 1.3051 so K z = 1.0014
M 2 350
z = = = 1
M1 350
= 0.6 + 0.4
Cmz = 0.6 + 0.4 =
1 0.2 > 0.4 so Cmz
= 0.4
Y-Y Axis
P 2500
=
ny = = 0.4696
Pdy 5324
K y = 1 + ( y 0.2 ) n y = 1 + ( 0.556 0.2 ) 0.4696 1 + 0.8n y = 1 + 0.8 ( 0.4696 )
=
K y 1.167 1.3757 so K y = 1.167
M2 0

= y = = 0
M 1 100
Cmy = 0.6 + 0.4 = 0.6 + 0.4 0= 0.6 > 0.4 so Cmy = 0.6
Lateral-Torsional Buckling
CmLT = 0.4
0.1LT n y 0.1n y
K LT = 1 1
CmLT 0.25 CmLT 0.25
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 11

REVISION NO.: 1
0.1 0.2538 0.4696 0.1 0.4696

K LT = 1 = 0.921 1 = 0.831
0.4 0.25 0.4 0.25
K LT = 0.921
Formula IS 9.3.2.2 (a)

D P K y Cmy M y K LT M z 2500 1.167 0.6 100 0.921 350
=+ + = + +
C Pdz M dy M dLTB 5324 325.72 886.76
D
= 0.470 + 0.215 + 0.363
C
D
= 1.048 (Governs)
C
Formula IS 9.3.2.2 (b)
D P 0.6 K y Cmy M y K z Cmz M z 2500 0.6 1.167 0.6 100 1.0014 0.4 350
= + + =+ +
C Pdy M dy M dLTB 5324 325.72 886.76
D
= 0.381 + 0.129 + 0.158
C
D
= 0.668
C
IS 800-2007 Example 003 - 12

REVISION NO.: 11
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions are presented separately for frame, shell, plane, asolid, solid, link and
solid elements, as well as for load cases and design types in the following subsections.
FRAMES
The SAP2000 verification and validation example problems for frames all show
acceptable, and in many cases exact, comparison with the independent solutions.
The accuracy of the SAP2000 results for certain classes of frame examples depends on
the discretization of the frame objects. For those classes of examples, as the
discretization is refined, the solution becomes more accurate. The table below lists those
classes of examples and the verification examples that address them.
CLASSES OF FRAME EXAMPLES WHERE

SOLUTION ACCURACY
IS DEPENDENT ON OBJECT DISCRETIZATION
Problem Class Example Problems
Buckling analysis 1-019
Tension stiffening using the P-Delta option 1-016, 1-017

available in static nonlinear analysis
Static nonlinear analysis of a model with large 1-029

bending displacements
Tension stiffening using P-Delta force assigned to 1-016

a frame object
Approximation of uniform mass 1-014, 1-015
AREA ELEMENTS - SHELLS, PLANES AND ASOLIDS

In general the SAP2000 verification and validation example problems for shells, planes
and asolids show acceptable comparison with the independent solutions. The verification
problems highlight several important modeling issues to be noted when using these area
elements. Those issues include element meshing and in-plane shear and bending
behavior when using irregular-shaped elements. Those items are explained in the
following subsections.
Meshing of Area Elements

It is important to adequately mesh area elements to obtain satisfactory results. The art of
creating area element models includes determining what constitutes an adequate mesh.
CONCLUSIONS - 1
REVISION NO.: 11
In general, meshes should always be two or more elements wide. Rectangular elements
give the best results and the aspect ratio should not be excessive. A tighter mesh may be
needed in areas where the stress is high or the stress is changing quickly.
When reviewing results, the following process can help determine if the mesh is
adequate. Pick a joint in a high stress area that has several different area elements
connected to it. Review the stress reported for that joint for each of the area elements. If
the stresses are similar, the mesh likely is adequate. Otherwise, additional meshing is
required. If you choose to view the stresses graphically when using this process, be sure
to turn off the stress averaging feature when displaying the stresses.
In-Plane Shear and Bending with Irregular-Shaped Elements

As shown in Example 2-002 and Example 3-002, when modeling for in-plane shear and
bending, the area element is sensitive to geometric distortions and to aspect ratio.
Rectangular- and parallelogram-shaped elements provide good behavior. Triangular
elements are not recommended. Trapezoidal-shaped elements should be avoided for use
where in-plane shear and bending is significant, if it is possible to use rectangular-
shaped or parallelogram-shaped elements. Where the use of trapezoidal elements is
necessary, the following modeling tips are suggested:
1. Always use a mesh that is two or more elements wide.
2. Minimize the angle between opposite sides of the trapezoid.
3. Use aspect ratios near one to one.
4. Review the results carefully to ascertain stress continuity between elements as

explained in the previous subsection.
Thin Shell versus Thick Shell

The main difference between the thin shell option and the thick shell option is that,
unlike the thin shell option, the thick shell option includes the effects of out-of-plane
shear deformations in the analysis.
For most shell element models, the effect of out-of-plane shear deformations is
negligible. Example 2-012 is a problem where the shear deformations are significant,
and thus, the thick and thin plate solutions yield different results.
CONCLUSIONS - 2
REVISION NO.: 11
In most problems where shear deformations are not significant the thin and thick plate
options will converge to essentially the same answers. The thick plate option usually
requires a finer mesh than the thin plate option to converge.
The thick plate results for twisting behavior are more sensitive to aspect ratio and
geometric distortions than the thin plate results. This is illustrated in load case 4 in
Example 2-002.
In general we recommend using the thin plate option, except in instances where out-of-
plane shear deformations may be significant.
Incompatible Bending Modes Option for Planes and Asolids

Models that have bending behavior and do not use the incompatible bending modes
option typically require a finer mesh than models using the incompatible bending modes
option to obtain the same level of accuracy in the results.
We recommend that you always use the incompatible bending modes option when you
use plane and asolid elements.
SOLIDS
In general the SAP2000 verification and validation example problems for solids show
acceptable comparison with the independent solutions.
It is important to adequately mesh solid elements to obtain satisfactory results.

Rectangular- and parallelogram-shaped elements give the best results and the aspect
ratio should not be excessive. Trapezoidal-shaped elements should be avoided where
possible. Where trapezoidal elements are unavoidable, the difference in angle between
opposite sides should be minimized. A tighter mesh may be needed in areas where the
stress is high or the stress is changing quickly.
Models that have bending behavior and do not use the incompatible bending modes
option typically require a finer mesh than models using the incompatible bending modes
option to obtain the same level of accuracy in the results. In addition, the models without
incompatible bending modes appear to be more sensitive to the element aspect ratio.
We recommend that you always use the incompatible bending modes option when you
use plane and asolid elements.
CONCLUSIONS - 3
REVISION NO.: 11
LINKS
In general the SAP2000 verification and validation example problems for links show
acceptable comparison with the independent solutions. The verification problems
highlight some important modeling issues to note when using link elements.
When using nonlinear links in an analysis, it is important to recognize that careful study
of the problem is required. Parametric studies of the link properties used in the SAP2000
model are useful. Also, as described in the following subsection entitled Load Cases,
parametric study of some of the load case parameters should be performed to ensure an
appropriate solution.
As illustrated in example problem 6-007, when damper elements with velocity

exponents other than one are used, the results obtained can be sensitive to the behavior
of the damper at low velocities. Thus, it is very important to obtain accurate information
about the force-velocity characteristics of the dampers and then to adjust the damper
properties in SAP2000 to match those characteristics. In particular, the stiffness, k, can
be adjusted to modify the low velocity behavior of the isolator. We suggest that when
nonlinear velocity exponents are used, parametric studies using different k values should
be performed. See example problem 6-007 for more information.
CABLES
In general the SAP2000 verification and validation example problems for cables show
acceptable comparison with the independent solutions. As shown in the verification
problems, the cable element must be analyzed using nonlinear analysis.
LOAD C ASES
For some types of static nonlinear analyses, the accuracy of the results is dependent on
the discretization or meshing used in the model. Examples of this are shown in example
problems 1-016, 1-017, 1-029, and 2-019.
The accuracy of the time history analysis results can depend on the output sampling time
interval. If that time interval is too long, peak responses may not be captured. This is
illustrated in example problem 1-022.
In general, the accuracy of the results of buckling load cases is dependent on the
discretization or meshing used in the model. An example of this is shown in example
problem 1-019.
Nonlinear analyses typically require parametric studies of the convergence tolerances to

verify that an appropriately small tolerance has been used. In general, you should assume
CONCLUSIONS - 4
REVISION NO.: 11
a tolerance and then run an analysis using that tolerance and another using a smaller
tolerance. If the results of the two analyses are not significantly different, the assumed
tolerance was acceptable. Otherwise, a smaller tolerance should be tried.
Similar to the parametric studies for convergence tolerances, for direct integration time
histories, parametric studies should also be performed to confirm that the time step used
is sufficiently small to give consistent results. This is described in example problem
6-011. Note that for direct integration time histories, control the size of the time step in
the analysis using the Maximum Substep Size parameter, and control the size of output
steps reported using the Output Time Step Size parameter. For example, set the
Maximum Substep Size parameter to 0.0005 second to force the analysis to use steps no
larger than 0.0005 second, and at the same time, set the Output Time Step Size
parameter to 0.02 second so that results are reported at a 0.02-second interval.
STEEL FRAME DESIGN

In general the SAP2000 validation example problems for steel frame design show
CONCRETE FRAME D ESIGN

In general the SAP2000 validation example problems for concrete frame design show
CONCLUSIONS - 5
REVISION NO.: 6
REFERENCES
AASHTO. 1990. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 14th Edition, as amended
by the Interim Specifications Bridges 1990. AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and
Structures.
Albasiny, E.L., and D.W. Martin. 1967. Bending and Membrane Equilibrium in Cooling
Towers. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, June, 1967. pp 1-17.
ASME. 1972. ANSYS, Program Verification and Qualification Library. ASME pressure
vessel and piping division committee on computer technology.
Bathe, K. J. and E. N. Dvorkin. 1986."A Formulation of General Shell Elements -- The
Use of Mixed Interpolation of Tonsorial Components" . Int. Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 697-722.
Bathe, K.J. and E.L. Wilson. 1972. Large Eigen Values in Dynamic Analysis. Journal of
the Engineering Mechanics Division. ASCE Vol. 98, No. EM6. Proc. Paper 9433.
December.
Beer, F. P. and Johnston Jr. E. R, 1962. Vector Mechanics for Engineers, Statics and
Dynamics, 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc. New York, NY.
Bowles, J.E. 1982. Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Chopra, A.R. 1995. Dynamics of Structures. Prentice Hall Inc.
Clough, R., and J. Penzien. 1975. Dynamics of Structures. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Cook, R.D. and W.C. Young. 1985. Advanced Mechanics of Materials. Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Crandall, S. H. and Dahl. N. C. 1959. An Introduction to the Mechanics of Solids,
McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc. New York, NY.
DeSalvo, G.J. and J.A. Swanson. 1977. ANSYS, Engineering Analysis System, Example
Manual. Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc. Elizabeth, Pennsylvania.
Engineering/Analysis Corporation and Computers/Structures International. Static and
Dynamic Analysis of Multistory Frame Structure Using DYNAMIC/EASE2.
Harris, C.M. and C.E. Crede. 1976. Shock and Vibration Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Harris, C.O. 1959. Introduction to Stress Analysis, The Macmillan Co. New York, NY.
Harvey, J.F. 1985. Theory and Design of Pressure Vessels. Von Nostrand, Reinhold.
REFERENCES - 1
REVISION NO.: 6
Kreyszig, E. 1983. Advanced Engineering Mathematics. John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Lin, T.Y. 1959. Design of Prestressed Concrete Structures. John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Livesly, R.K., and D.B. Chandler. 1956. Stability Functions for Structural Frame Works.
Manchester University Press. United Kingdom.
MacNeal, R.H., and R.C. Harder. 1985. A Proposed Set of Problems to Test Finite
Element Accuracy. Finite Element in Analysis and Design, Vol. 1. pp3-20. North
Holland.
Paz, M. 1985. Structural Dynamics, Theory and Computations. Van Nostrand, Reinhold.
Peterson, F.E. 1981. EASE2, Elastic Analysis for Structural Engineering, Example
Problem Manual. Engineering Analysis Corporation. Berkeley, California.
Peyrot, A.H., and A.M. Goulois. 1979. "Analysis of Cable Structures". Computers and
Structures, Vol. 10. pp. 805-813.
Poulos, H.G. and E.H. Davis. 1974. Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Roark, R.J., and W.C. Young. 1975. Formulas for Stress and Strain, Fifth Edition.
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Scheller, J. and M.C. Constantinou. 1999. Response History Analysis of Structures with
Seismic Isolation and Energy Dissipation Systems: Verification Examples for Program
SAP2000. Technical Report MCEER-99-0002. University of Buffalo, State University of
New York.
Scordelis, A.C. and K.S. Lo. 1964. Computer Analysis of Cylindrical Shells. Journal of
The American Concrete Association.
Thomson, W. T. 1965. Vibration Theory and Applications. 2nd Printing. Prentice-Hall,

Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Tibert, G. 1999. Numerical Analysis of Cable Roof Structures, Licentiate Thesis.

Department of Structural Engineering. Royal Institute of Technology.
Timoshenko. S. 1956. Strength of Materials, Part II, Advanced Theory and Problems. 3rd
Edition. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. New York, NY.
Timoshenko, S. and D. H. Young. 1955. Vibration Problems in Engineering. 3rd Edition.

D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. New York, NY.
Timoshenko, S. and J. M. Gere. 1961. Theory of Elastic Stability. 2nd Edition. McGraw-
Hill Book Company.
REFERENCES - 2
REVISION NO.: 6
Timoshenko, S. and J. N. Goodier. 1951. Theory of Elasticity. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill

Book Co. Inc. New York, NY.
Timoshenko, S. and S. Woinowsky-Krieger 1959. Theory of Plates and Shells. 2nd
Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc. New York, NY.
Tsopelas, P.C., M.C. Constantinou, and A.M. Reinhorn. 1994. 3D-BASIS-ME: Computer
Program for the Nonlinear Analysis of Seismically Isolated Single and Multiple
Building Structures and Liquid Storage Tanks. Technical Report NCEER-94-0010.
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Buffalo, New York.
Ugural, A.C. 1981. Stresses in Plates and Shells. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Zienkiewicz, O.C. 1977. The Finite Element Method. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
REFERENCES - 3

Analysis Verification Examples

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

Analysis Verification Examples

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Analysis Verification Examples

ISO GEN093010M 4 Rev. 5

Copyright Computers and Structures, Inc., 1978-2016.

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

Computers & Structures, Inc.

info@csiamerica.com (for general information)

THIS PRODUCT IS A PRACTICAL AND POWERFUL TOOL FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN.

THE INFORMATION PRODUCED BY THE SOFTWARE MUST BE CHECKED BY A

Matrix of Program Features Covered in Example Problems

Automating the SAP2000 Verification Checking Process

1-019 Buckling of a Rigid Frame

BS 5950-2000 Ex001 Wide Flange Section Under Bending

P-M Interaction Check for Compression-Controlled

P-M Interaction Check for Compression-Controlled

Area Elements - Shells, Planes and Asolids

References to SAP2000 in this documentation should be interpreted as CSiBridge for

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

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

TABLE 1: GROUPING OF EXAMPLE PROBLEMS

2 Shell 2-001, 2-002, , 2-xxx Table 2-2

3 Plane 3-001, 3-002, , 3-xxx Table 2-3

4 Asolid 4-001, 4-002, , 4-xxx Table 2-4

5 Solid 5-001, 5-002, , 5-xxx Table 2-5

6 Link 6-001, 6-002, , 6-xxx Table 2-6

7 Cable 7-001, 7-002, , 7-xxx Table 2-7

8 Steel Frame Code Name Ex### Table 2-8

9 Concrete Frame Code Name Ex### Table 2-9

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF GROUP 1 (FRAME) EXAMPLES

Settlement of support in frame structures

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF GROUP 1 (FRAME) EXAMPLES

Cardinal point Hand calculation

Simply Hand calculated

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF GROUP 1 (FRAME) EXAMPLES

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF GROUP 1 (FRAME) EXAMPLES

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF GROUP 1 (FRAME) EXAMPLES

TABLE 2-2: SUMMARY OF GROUP 2 (SHELL) EXAMPLES

TABLE 2-2: SUMMARY OF GROUP 2 (SHELL) EXAMPLES

Eigenvalue analysis using shell elements Hand calculation

Results scaled from

TABLE 2-2: SUMMARY OF GROUP 2 (SHELL) EXAMPLES

Buckling analysis of shells Hand calculated

TABLE 2-3: SUMMARY OF GROUP 3 (PLANE) EXAMPLES

TABLE 2-4: SUMMARY OF GROUP 4 (ASOLID) EXAMPLES

TABLE 2-5: SUMMARY OF GROUP 5 (SOLID) EXAMPLES

TABLE 2-5: SUMMARY OF GROUP 5 (SOLID) EXAMPLES

TABLE 2-5: SUMMARY OF GROUP 5 (SOLID) EXAMPLES

TABLE 2-6: SUMMARY OF GROUP 6 (LINK) EXAMPLES

Linear links Hand calculation

TABLE 2-6: SUMMARY OF GROUP 6 (LINK) EXAMPLES

Friction pendulum link elements

TABLE 2-7: SUMMARY OF GROUP 7 (CABLE) EXAMPLES

Uniform load applied to cable elements Comparison with

TABLE 2-8: SUMMARY OF GROUP 8 (STEEL FRAME DESIGN) EXAMPLES

Examples F.1-2a and

Examples 5.1 and

TABLE 2-8: SUMMARY OF GROUP 8 (STEEL FRAME DESIGN) EXAMPLES

TABLE 2-9: SUMMARY OF GROUP 9 (CONCRETE FRAME DESIGN) EXAMPLES

TABLE 2-9: SUMMARY OF GROUP 9 (CONCRETE FRAME DESIGN) EXAMPLES

MATRIX OF PROGRAM FEATURES COVERED IN EXAMPLES

TABLE 3: CONTENTS OF MATRIX TABLES

Frame object assignments including loads Table 4-2

Area object assignments including loads Table 4-3

Solid object assignments including loads Table 4-4

Link object assignments including loads Table 4-5