Fespa Is Verification Examples

The RC expert software
for the analysis and design of earthquake

resistant structures
Verification Examples
Fespa IS
Verification Examples
An insight into the analysis background

of Fespa software
Version 2.4
Athens, July 2014
2 Fespa IS
Contents
1 Static Analysis Examples ................................................ 8
1.1 Plane Truss Static Analysis .................................................................... 8

1.1.1 Problem Description ......................................................................... 8
1.1.2 Programs Features Tested.............................................................. 10
1.1.3 Numerical Results Comparison ...................................................... 10
1.1.4 References....................................................................................... 10
1.2 Space Truss Static Analysis ................................................................. 11

1.2.1 Problem Description ....................................................................... 11
1.2.4 References....................................................................................... 13
1.3 Plane Frame Static Analysis ................................................................ 14

1.3.4 References....................................................................................... 15
1.4 Space Frame Static Analysis ................................................................ 16

1.4.3 Numerical Results ........................................................................... 17
1.4.4 References....................................................................................... 18
1.5 Static Analysis of a Frame with non-Symmetrical Column Section . 19

1.5.4 References....................................................................................... 21
1.6 Static Analysis of a Beam on Elastic Foundation ............................... 22

Software Verification Manual 3

1.6.4 References....................................................................................... 23
1.7 Static Analysis of a Grid on Elastic Foundation ................................ 24

1.7.4 References....................................................................................... 26
1.8 Fictitious Axis Estimation .................................................................... 27

1.8.4 References....................................................................................... 30
2 Modal Analysis Examples ............................................. 31
2.1 Plane Frame Eigenvalue Analysis ....................................................... 31

2.1.4 References....................................................................................... 32
2.2 Space Frame Eigenvalue Analysis ....................................................... 33

2.2.4 References....................................................................................... 34
3 Dynamic Analysis Examples ......................................... 35
3.1 Single Symmetric Frame Response Spectrum Analysis .................... 35

3.1.4 References....................................................................................... 37
3.2 Space Frame Response Spectrum Analysis ........................................ 38

4 Fespa IS

3.2.4 References....................................................................................... 40
3.3 Response Spectrum Analysis of an One-Storey Symmetrical Frame41

3.3.4 References....................................................................................... 44
3.4 Response Spectrum Analysis of a Real Multistory Structure ........... 45

3.4.4 References....................................................................................... 47
4 Design Examples ........................................................... 48
4.1 Slab Cracking Check ............................................................................ 48

4.1.3 Comparison with Indian Standards ................................................. 49
4.1.4 References....................................................................................... 50
4.2 Slab Calculation and Design ................................................................ 51

4.2.3 Bending Moment Calculation Comparison with Hand Calculation 52
4.2.5 References....................................................................................... 54
4.3 Seismic Weight Calculation of Slabs ................................................... 56

4.3.4 References....................................................................................... 58
4.4 Beam Flexural and Shear Design ........................................................ 59


4.4.4 References....................................................................................... 62
4.5 Column Flexural and Shear Design .................................................... 63

4.5.3 Flexural Design ............................................................................... 63
4.5.4 Shear Design ................................................................................... 66
4.5.5 References....................................................................................... 67
4.6 Footing Design in Flexure, Shear and Punching ................................ 68

4.6.3 Ground checks ................................................................................ 69
4.6.4 Flexural Design ............................................................................... 70
4.6.5 Shear Design ................................................................................... 71
4.6.6 Punching Design ............................................................................. 72
4.6.7 References....................................................................................... 74
Appendix I ......................................................................................................... 75
Appendix II ....................................................................................................... 82
6 Fespa IS
Disclaimer
Fespa is a structural analysis and design software used by over 4000 engineers
and has a history dating back over 30 years. It has been developed by a highly
qualified and experienced team of engineers and programmers and all released
versions have been tested extensively. A great amount of test examples ranging
from simple structural members to large buildings have been used for Fespa
verification. Nevertheless, LH Logismiki does not resume responsibility for the
validity of the results obtained from Fespa or for the accuracy of this
documentation. For this reason, the user must verify his own results. The
structural model developed, the input data and the correct interpretation of the
outcome are the responsibility of the engineer working with Fespa.
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to verify various features and capabilities of the
Fespa program. This is accomplished by solving a series of example problems
originally appeared in well-known books of structural analysis and design. The
results produced by Fespa were compared to independent sources, such as
published results in the relative references, hand calculations, or results obtained
from other structural/finite element programs. In any case the percentage
difference between the results is calculated according to the following formula:
Fespa Result
Percentage Difference = 100 1
Independent Result
Generally problems are separated in two main categories:

a) Analysis problems that concern static analysis, eigenvalue analysis and
dynamic analysis according to modal response spectrum analysis method
b) Design problems according to Indian Standards.
For compatibility reasons all results (displacements and internal forces) are
presented following the local references axes system that Fespa uses which is
displayed in Figure 1-1:
Figure 1-1: Local axes of columns and beams

As far as global structures axes are concerned, the vertical axis that defines the
gravity loads direction is Y axis and the other two axes X and Z are defined by
the right hand rule.
8 Fespa IS
1
Static Analysis Examples
1.1 Plane Truss Static Analysis

1.1.1 Problem Description
A 46-member plane truss that has been analyzed in [1] is shown in Figure 1-1.
Modulus of elasticity is E=2105 KN/cm2 and member cross sectional areas are
presented in Table 1-1. Also, nodal external loading is available in Table 1-2.
Computer model was created in XZ plane at floor 0 and to account for 2D
analysis the degrees of freedom that were restrained for every node are vertical
displacement Dy and rotations x and z.
Member Area (cm2)

B1.1(0) - B1.8(0) 21.06
B9.1(0) - B16.1(0)
8.66
B31.1(0) - B47.1(0)
B1.17(0) - B1.30(0) 4.79
Table 1-1: Truss elements geometric properties
Node Load (KN)

Fx=30
N21(0) Fz=-60
Fx=30
N22(0)
Fz=-60
Table 1-2: Nodal loads

9 Fespa IS
Figure 1-1: Plane truss geometry.

10 Fespa IS
1.1.2 Programs Features Tested

Truss element for structural analysis of steel truss members.
2D static analysis by restricting the appropriate spatial nodal degrees of
freadom.
1.1.3 Numerical Results Comparison

Axial forces outcomes are set in comparison with reference [1] in Table 1-3.
Axial Force (KN) Axial Force (KN)
Member Difference %
FESPA Reference [1]
B13.1(0) 150.0 150.0 0
B14.1(0) 150.0 150.0 0
B15.1(0) -134.16 -134.16 0
B16.1(0) -134.16 -134.16 0
B23.1(0) 0 0 0
B24.1(0) 0 0 0
Table 1-3: Comparison of axial force in plane truss members.
1.1.4 References
[1] CS Krishnamoorthy, Finite Element Analysis, Theory and Programming,
Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, 1987
11 Fespa 10
1.2 Space Truss Static Analysis

A 25 member space truss as shown in Figure 1-2 has been analyzed in [1].
Modulus of elasticity is E=2105 KN/cm2 and members cross sectional areas are
presented in Table 1-4. Also nodal external loading is available in Table 1-5.
Figure 1-2: Space truss geometry.
Member Area (cm2)

B1.1(2) B5.1(2) 10.47
B6.1(2) B9.1(2) 19.03
B10.1(1) B21.1(1) 21.06
B22.1(1) B25.1(1) 42.12
Table 1-4: Truss elements geometric properties
12 Fespa IS
Node Load (KN)

N5(1) Fx=2.30
N8(1) Fx=2.30
Fx=4.50
N9(2) Fy=-23.0
Fz=-45.0
Fy=-23.0
N10(2)
Fz=-45.0
Table 1-5: Nodal loads

Truss element for structural analysis of steel truss members.
3D static analysis of structures consisting of truss members.

Analysis outcome is compared with reference [1] in Table 1-6 and comparison
concerns members axial forces and support reactions. These reactions can be
found in programs report when the extended version is selected (<< Analysis
and design > Report > Printing of spatial frame analysis results in the report =
Extended Version>>).
Axial Force (KN) Axial Force (KN)

Member Difference %
FESPA Reference [1]
B2.1(2) -23.664 -23.664 0
B3.1(2) -19.779 -19.779 0
B4.1(2) 12.966 12.966 0
B5.1(2) 16.851 16.851 0
B22.1(1) 49.707 49.707 0
B23.1(1) -63.973 -63.973 0
B24.1(1) 42.562 42.562 0
B25.1(1) -71.117 -71.117 0
Table 1-6: Comparison of member axial forces.

It should be noted that in Reference [1] boundary elements are used to compute
support reactions and their values are referred to their local system of axes. If
they are transformed to the global system that Fespa uses the reaction results are
identical.
Restrained Reaction (KN) Reaction (KN)
Difference %
Node FESPA Reference [1]
-28.716 -28.716
N1(0) -36.900 -36.900 0
16.679 16.679
24.166 24.166
N2(0) -30.100 -30.100 0
11.712 11.712
-45.872 -45.872
N3(0) 59.900 59.900 0
33.288 33.288
41.322 41.322
N4(0) 53.100 53.100 0
28.321 28.321
Table 1-7: Comparison of space trusss supports reaction.
1.2.4 References
[1] CS Krishnamoorthy, Finite Element Analysis, Theory and Programming,
Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, 1987
14 Fespa IS
1.3 Plane Frame Static Analysis

The plane frame of Figure 1-3 originally presented in [1] is analyzed statically
under the following three load cases:
a) Distributed load q=25 KN/m at members B4.1(0) and B4.2(0).
b) Lateral distributed load u=25 KN/m.
c) Vertical concentrated load p=10 KN at nodes N12(0), N13(0).
Figure 1-3: Plane frame geometry.

Also, beam inertial properties are presented in the following table.
Member Moment of Inertia

B1.1 ,B2.1, B2.2
B1.2, B2.3 0.9
B3.1, B3.2, 8.1, 9.1 0.8
B4.1, B4.2 0.75
B5.1, B6.1 0.7
Table 1-8: Members moments of inertia.
In order to set a 2D problem in Fespa the following actions should be performed

in advance:
1. Computer model is created in XZ plane at floor 0 and for every node vertical
displacement Dy and rotations x and z are restrained.
2. To match the feature in Reference [1] that only bending works are
accounted in the analysis, zero value is given in Fespa in shear areas
(Ay=Az=0) and a large value is given in axial area (Ax=104).
3. Finally, appropriate value of the moment of inertia is given in Iy and the rest
(Ix, Iz) are set equal to zero.

Beam-Column element for frame analysis.
2D static analysis by restricting the appropriate spatial nodal d.o.f.
Nodal and distributed element loads considered.

Comparison of results, presented in Table 1-9, is evaluated in terms of internal
bending moments at frame elements ends.
M (KNm) M (KNm)
Member/Node Difference %
FESPA Reference [1]
B1.1(0)/N1(0) -618.92 -618.90 0.0032
B3.1(0)/N2(0) -657.57 -657.60 -0.0046
B2.1(0)/N3(0) 678.30 678.28 0.0029
B5.1(0)/N7(0) 298.26 298.25 0.0034
B4.1(0)/N(0)5 -631.37 -631.40 -0.0048
Table 1-9: Bending moment results comparison.

Negligible differences are due to the approximate exclusion of axial works in the
analysis. These are considered only for the purposes of the example, as the real
behavior requires both axial and shear effects to be included in frame analysis.
1.3.4 References
[1] K. Hirschfeld, Baustatik, Erster Teil S. 1-768, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg New York, 1969.
16 Fespa IS
1.4 Space Frame Static Analysis

The fixed base space frame of Figure 1-4, originally presented in [1] is analyzed
statically under a vertical concentrated load P=100 KN in the middle of the span
connecting the two frames. Elastic and shear modulus have values E=2.1108 and
G=9.45107 respectively. Elements properties are summarized in Table 1-10.
Figure 1-4: Space frame geometry.

Beams (m4)
Columns Beams (m4)
Property B1.1(0), B1.2(0),
(m2) B3.1(0), B3.2(0)
B2.1(0), B2.2(0)
Ax 0.15 0.18 0.13
Ay 0.125 0.15 0.11
Az 0.125 0.15 0.11
Ix 2.81710-3 3.70810-3 1.78810-3
Iy 1.12510-3 1.35010-3 6.51010-4
Iz 3.12510-3 5.40010-3 2.60410-3
Table 1-10: Members inertial characteristics.

In Reference [1] only bending and torsional deformations are considered while
axial and shear deformations are ignored. In Fespa this is achieved manually by
setting shear areas Ay, Az of all elements equal to zero and giving a large number
to the axial area Ax, (i.e. Ax=1000). In order to verify the validity of the results
when axial and shear deformations are included the same frame is analyzed with
Sap2000 [2] and the results are set in direct comparison.

Beam-Column element for frame analysis.
3D static analysis.
Frame element with/without axial and shear deformations considered.
1.4.3 Numerical Results

First, the following stress resultant results are obtained considering only bending
and torsional results. All moments units are KNm and shear units are KN.
18 Fespa IS
Reference Difference Difference

Member/Node FESPA Sap2000
[1] % %
B3.1(0)/N6(0) (Mz) 99.19 100.30 -0.44 99.19 0
B1.1(0)/N5(0) (Mz) 44.02 44.10 -0.18 44.02 0
B1.1(0)/N4(0) (Mz) 18.48 18.50 -0.11 18.48 0
C4(0) /N4(-1) (Mz) 9.24 9.30 -0.65 9.24 0
B1.1(0) /N5(0) (T) 12.91 12.35 4.5 12.91 0
Table 1-11: Moment results without shear and axial effects included.
Then axial and shear effects are considered both in Fespa and Sap by attributing
the real cross sectional properties to the members. In the following table moment
and shear forces output is compared between the two softwares.
Difference
%
B3.1(0)/N6(0) (Mz) 99.27 99.28 -0.01
B1.1(0)/N5(0) (Mz) 44.30 44.30 0
B1.1(0)/N5(0) (Vy) 25.00 25.00 0
C4(0)/N4(-1) (Mz) 8.77 8.77 0
C4(0)/N4(0) (Vy) 6.74 6.74 0
B1.1(0)/N5(0) (T) 12.87 12.86 0.08
Table 1-12: Moment results with shear and axial effects included.
1.4.4 References
[1] K. Hirschfeld, Baustatik, Erster Teil S. 1-768, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg New York, 1969.
[2] SAP2000, Version 15.0, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley,
California
1.5 Static Analysis of a Frame with non-

Symmetrical Column Section

In this example the plan view of a reinforced concrete single story frame with L-
shaped columns is presented in Figure 1-5. Floor height is 3m and beam length is
5m. The frame is analyzed statically under a concentrated load equal to 10 KN/m
at both beam sets. Column section dimensions are 25/60/25/60 and beams are
rectangular 25/50. Inertia properties for both columns and beam are presented in
Table 1-13. Moments of inertia for the L shaped section are calculated in terms
of the principal axes of the sections which are located 45o counterclockwise of
the geometrical axis.
Figure 1-5: Plan view of the space frame with L-shaped columns.
Property Columns Beams

Ax (m2) 0.2375 0.125
Iy (m4) 9.54910-3 6.51010-4
Iz (m4) 3.74710-3 2.60410-3
Table 1-13: Members areal and inertial properties.

20 Fespa IS

3D static analysis.
Non-symmetrical cross sectional properties calculated.
Rotation of members local axes.

Before performing the static analysis, moment of inertia calculation is verified
with hand calculation based on [1]. The L-shaped section has equal legs with
length =0.60m and small size length t=0.25m. Cross sectional centre of mass
and inertia moments in the two Cartesian axes are given from the following
relations:
a 2 + at t
C= C= = 0.2355m
2 ( 2a t )
y z
y =a C y =0.3645m
1 3
ty + a ( a y ) ( a t )( a y t ) = 6.662 103 m 4
3 3
I y = Iz =
3
A (t / 2 Cy ) =
2
I yz = 0.1105m 4
For the symmetrical L-shaped section the principal axes are those defined when
rotating the Cartesian axes by 450. The orientation of the columns sections in this
example coincides with the orientation of principal axes. Consequently, the
principal moments of inertia should be calculated and this is accomplished by the
following relations:
I y =' I y cos 450 + I z sin 450 I yz= 9.549 103
I z =' I z cos 450 + I y sin 450 + I yz= 3.747 103
The results obtained from the above equations are identical with those exported
from Fespa in Table 1-13.
Then the validity of the static analysis results is tested in terms of bending
moments. Each of the two plane frames that form the 3D structure is
independent, meaning that the static analysis of a single plane frame produces
equal results with the 3D static analysis of the whole space frame. According to
the analytical formulas of [1] bending moments at the columns base and top are
calculated as follows:
ql 2
M base =
8.62 KNm
=
12( k + 2 )
ql 2
M top = =-17.27 KNm
6( k + 2 )
I beam h
=k = 0.417
I col ,z l
M (KNm) M (KNm)
Member Difference %
FESPA Analytical Calculation
Column base -8.62 -8.62 0
Column top -17.24 -17.24 0
Table 1-14: Moment results at frame columns.
Figure 1-6: Plan view of the rotated space frame.

Then the independence of the results of the local axis rotation is verified. To test
this feature the whole structure is rotated counterclockwise by 26.57o (Figure
1-6) so as column local axis to be rotated with the same angle from global axis.
After performing this rotation the results remain the same, a fact that proves that
the rotation of local axes doesnt influence the final stress outcome.
1.5.4 References
[1] Beton-Kalender, Teil I, Verlag Von Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin-
Munchen, 1982.
22 Fespa IS
1.6 Static Analysis of a Beam on Elastic

Foundation

This example uses a simply supported beam on elastic foundation to test Fespas
beam on elastic springs element. The example was first analyzed in [1]. Beams
geometry and loading is shown in Figure 1-7. Beam has a rectangular 0.50 m
x0.30 m cross section with elastic modulus E=1.5107 KN/m2. Also, soil is
considered linear elastic with modulus Ks=40000 KN/m2/m. In analysis, only
flexural deformations are considered and this is accomplished by setting shear
area Ay=0 and axial area Ax=0.1510000 m2. A computer model for 2D analysis
is created by restraining for all nodes displacement Dz and rotations x, z.
Loading conditions are the following:
Uniform distributed load of q=-3.60 KN/m at all beams.
Concentrated loads of P1=-250 KN, P2=-100KN and P3=-200 KN at nodes
N2(0), N3(0) and N4(0) respectively.
Figure 1-7: Beam on elastic foundation geometry

Beam foundation element on elastic springs.
2D static analysis of simply supported beam.
Application of ground characteristics.
Distributed loads at beams and concentrated loads at nodes.

Results are compared with results calculated in [1] in terms of bending moments
and shear forces and are presented in the following table:
Difference
Member/Node FESPA Reference [1]
%
B1.1(0) /N2(0) (Mz) 84.28 84.27 0.012
B2.1(0) (minMz) -4.19 -4.21 -0.48
B1.1(0) /N2(0) (Vy) 148.93 148.93 0
B1.2(0) /N2(0) (Vy) -101.07 -101.07 0
Table 1-15: Comparison of bending moments and shear forces.

Moreover, bending moments Mz diagram is presented in the next figure:
Figure 1-8: Bending moment diagram along beam.
1.6.4 References
[1] Glyn Jones, Analysis of Beams on Elastic Foundations using finite
difference theory. Thomas Telford, 1997.
24 Fespa IS
1.7 Static Analysis of a Grid on Elastic

Foundation

In this example foundation beams are tested by analyzing a grid on elastic
springs. The plan view of the considered model is presented in Figure 1-9 and
the obtained results are compared with those produced from Sap2000 software
[1]. All nodes except from the central one are hinged and applied loading
consists of the following load cases:
Concentrated load at node N4, Py=-100 KK
Distributed load at beams B2.1, B3.1, qy=-10 KN/m
Figure 1-9: Plan view of the grid on elastic foundation.

Soil is considered linear elastic with modulus Ks=3333.33 KN/m2/m. Material
elastic modulus and shear modulus are E=2.1108 KN/m2 and G=8.08108 KN/m2
respectively. All beams have the same properties namely Ax=0.09 m2,
Ix=1.14110-3 m4, Iy=6.75010-4 m4 , Iz=6.75010-4 m4

Beam foundation element on elastic springs.
3D static analysis of grids.
Application of ground characteristics.
Distributed loads on beams and concentrated loads on nodes.

In Sap 2000 a member on elastic springs should be discretized in more than one
elements in order to increase the accuracy of the results. This happens as more
springs are connected in internal nodes and the continuum contact of the soil to
the beam is better approximated. This is not the case in Fespa, as the program
has a separate beam on elastic springs element, satisfying the beams equations
in advance. For the purposes of this comparison in Sap2000 every member is
discretized in 100 elements.
Difference
%
B2.1/N4 (Mz) 89.74 89.75 -0.01
B2.1/N4 (Vz) 44.83 44.83 0
B3.1/N5 (Mz) -39.44 -39.44 0
B3.1/N3 (Vz) -68.50 68.50 0
B1.1/N4 (uy) -2.8210 -3
-2.8210 -3
0
Table 1-16: Stress resultant and displacement results comparison.

Similar to the case of the beam on elastic foundation, bending moment diagram
is plotted herein. As expected, larger bending moments are appeared in the inner
beams where loading is imposed.
26 Fespa IS
Figure 1-10: Grids bending moment diagram.
1.7.4 References
California.
1.8 Fictitious Axis Estimation

In order to test the validity of the fictitious axis calculation [1] (see also
Appendix I), the building presented in Figure 1-11 is analyzed and the results are
compared with those obtained in [2]. It is a 5-storey building with 3m storey
height and total storey mass 300t. Beams are considered all to be the same with
Iz=0.0007m4 moment of inertia and concrete grade is C16. Column coordinates
are presented in Table 1-17.
Figure 1-11: Plan view of a typical storey of the building tested.

28 Fespa IS
Column X Z Column X Z
C1 4.76 -10.52 C16 -2.38 -1.72
C2 7.36 -8.18 C17 -1.6 4.42
C3 9.96 -5.83 C18 7.23 5.36
C4 -14.99 3.27 C19 2.47 6.91
C5 -14.11 -0.89 C20 -2.28 8.45
C6 -13.22 -5.04 C21 -4.42 -3.17
C7 -1.35 11.31 C22 -5.31 0.98
C8 3.41 9.76 C23 -6.18 5.13
C9 8.16 8.22 C24 -7.35 -3.79
C10 2.42 -7.92 C25 -8.24 0.36
C11 5.02 -5.57 C26 -9.12 4.52
C12 7.62 -3.23 C27 -10.29 -4.42
C13 0.08 -5.31 C28 -11.17 -0.26
C14 2.68 -2.97 C29 -12.05 3.9
C15 3.83 -1.03
Table 1-17: Columns coordinates in global Cartesian system OXZ.

3D static analysis.
Elastic centre of rigidity calculation.
Fictitious axis calculation.

The coordinates of the structures fictitious axis are calculated with Fespa and
the results obtained are compared with those of reference [2].
Fictitious Axis FESPA Reference [1] Difference %

Coordinate X (m) -2.14 -2.27 5.73
Coordinate Z (m) 0.538 0.563 4.44
Coordinate Y (m) 12.00 12.00 0
Angle of principal
-42.70 -43.58 2.02
system (degrees)
Table 1-18: Fictitious axis coordinates comparison.
Also, torsional radii of gyration which are identical for every floor level are set
in comparison in the following table:
Torsional radii FESPA Reference [1] Difference %
rI (m) 7.01 7.02 0.14

rII (m) 8.61 8.86 2.82
Table 1-19: Torsional radii of gyration comparison.

The above results are presented also graphically as appeared in Fespa in the next
figure. The centre of mass and the fictitious axis are plotted with the red and
green circle respectively, while the torsional ellipsis of gyration with its principle
axes are also included.
Figure 1-12: Graphical representation of the fictitious axis and torsional axes of
gyration.
It should be noted that any differences in the above results are due to the
different way of simulating the floor masses. In Fespa masses are considered
distributed in every slab, whereas in reference [2] mass is concentrated in the
30 Fespa IS
axes origin. Consequently in Fespa the trial forces (see in Appendix I) which are
necessary for the fictitious axis calculation are applied in all structural nodes
where any mass value is assigned. On the other hand, in [2] the trial forces are
applied as torsional moments only at the centre of mass.
1.8.4 References
[1] T. Makarios, K. Anastasiadis, Real and Fictitious Elastic Axes of Multi-
storey Buildings: Theory, The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 7, 33-
55 (1998).
storey Buildings: Applications, The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 7,
57-71 (1998).
[3] E.M. Marino and P.P. Rossi, Exact Evaluation of the Location of the
Optimum Torsion Axis, The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, DOI:10.1002/tal.252.July 2003
2
Modal Analysis Examples
2.1 Plane Frame Eigenvalue Analysis

The ten-bay, nine-strorey 2D frame presented in Figure 2-1 was first solved by
Bathe and Wilson in [1] and is used as a test example for the verification of
Fespas eigenvalues analysis. The first three eigenvalues are calculated and are
compared with reference [1]. All members consist of the same material and cross
sectional properties and have the same mass per unit length. Their values,
converted in SI units, are presented in table 1.
Material Properties Cross Sectional Properties

E=2.07107 A=0.28 m2
=143.64 tn/m3 I=8.63110-3
Table 2-1: Members material and cross sectional properties.
It should be noted that the appropriate mass characteristics are attributed in

Fespa by applying the equivalent material mass density. A computer model for
2D analysis is created by restraining at all nodes displacement Dz and rotations
x and z. In addition, only bending and axial deformations are considered in
analysis while shear deformations are ignored by setting the shear area to zero
(Ay=0).
32 Fespa IS
Figure 2-1: Plane frame geometry

Modal analysis for calculating eigenvalues.
Mass per unit length assignment at members from material density values.

Fespa results are compared with the results presented in [1] for the first three
eagenvalues. Eigenvalues are the squares of the angular frequencies (2) and are
presented in the next table:
Mode Fespa Reference [1] Difference %

1 0.5895 0.5895 0
2 5.5316 5.5270 0.083
3 16.5946 16.5878 0.041
Table 2-2: Eigenvalues comparison.
2.1.4 References
[1] Bathe K.J., Wilson E.L., Large Eigenvalue Problems in Dynamic
Analysis, Journal of Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 98, No. EM6, Proc.
Paper 9433, December 1972.
2.2 Space Frame Eigenvalue Analysis

The 3D one-story, one-bay frame in each direction, presented in Figure 2-2, is
analyzed for the first 24 modal eigenvalues. Moreover, the same frame is
analyzed in Sap2000 verification manual (example 1-023) and the results of both
programs are set in comparison. All members consist of the same material and
cross sectional properties while masses are considered concentrated at nodes.
Their values, converted in SI units, are presented in Table 2-3.
Cross Sectional
Material Properies Joint Masses
Properties
Nodes N1(1), N2(1),
Ax=6.93 cm2,
E=0.92108 N2(1), N2(1):
Ay=Az=3.48 cm2
M=4.4410-3 tn
Ix=55.42 cm4, All other nodes:
G=7.4107
Iy=Iz=27.71 cm4 M= 1.49710-3 tn
Table 2-3: Members material, cross sectional properties and nodal masses.
34 Fespa IS
In Fespa there isnt a direct way to assign masses at nodes. However, it can be
done equivalently by applying concentrated vertical loads in the direction of
gravity at the respective nodes. These loads are turned into masses in modal
analysis by multiplication with gravity acceleration g=9.81 m/s2. Consequently,
at nodes N1(1), N2(1), N2(1), N2(1) a load value of Py= -0.0436 KN is applied
and at all other nodes a load value of Py= -0.0436 KN is applied.

Three dimensional modal analysis.
Mass nodal assignment by applying concentrated loads.

A one-to-one comparison presented in Table 2-4 for the first 24 eigenfrequencies
is performed between Fespa results and Sap2000 results in [1]. Great accuracy
even in higher mode values proves the validity of Fespa outcome. For brevity
reasons, eigenfreaquencies 6 to 19 are omitted.
Mode Fespa Reference [1] Difference %
1 112 112 0
2 117 117 0
3 138 138 0
4 218 218 0
5 415 415 0
20 1033 1032 0.097
21 1090 1090 0
22 1151 1151 0
23 1177 1177 0
24 1230 1229 0.081
Table 2-4: Eigenfrequencies comparison results.
2.2.4 References
California.
3
Dynamic Analysis Examples
3.1 Single Symmetric Frame Response

Spectrum Analysis
In this example a space frame similar to the one presented in [1] is used to check
the basic properties of dynamic response frame analysis. The frame (Figure 3-1)
is symmetrical about one axis of symmetry and has 30x60 columns and 25x30
beams. The purpose of this example is to check the correct calculation of the
structures principle axes and also the independence of member forces from the
plan views orientation in a response spectrum analysis. This is a fundamental
property of the method of mode superposition as explained in [1].
Figure 3-1: Three dimensional single symmetrical frame.

36 Fespa IS

Principle axes calculation.
Response spectrum analysis.
CQC method for modal combination.

First the principle axes calculation is checked easily as the first principle axis
must coincide with the frames axis of symmetry, while the second one is
perpendicular to the first one. This fact is verified as observed in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2: Frames principle axes presentation

In the next comparison the frame is rotated in XZ plane 30 and 105 degrees
counterclockwise respectively (Figure 3-3). This action is performed so as to
verify that member forces in a response spectrum analysis are independent of
structures orientation. More specifically, a dynamic analysis with mass
displacement is performed with a standard design spectrum of EC8-1 [2] and the
six internal forces at the base of column C1 are compared. The results are
presented in table where it is clearly obvious that the results are nearly identical.
Also, the absolute angle of the principal axis of every frame differs with the
angle of rotation of every frame, proving that that the relative principal axes
angle is also uninfluenced of the rotation.
Figure 3-3: Rotation of frames in XZ plane.
0 degrees 30 degrees 105 degrees

N (KN) 99.658 99.658 99.658
My (KNm) -23.183 -23.183 -23.183
Mz (KNm) -33.228 -33.228 33.228
Vy (KN) -11.882 -11.882 11.882
Vz (KN) 17.364 17.364 17.364
T (KNm) -1.815 -1.815 1.814
Angle of
-22.688 -52.363 -104.954
principal system
Table 3-1: Column C1 internal forces at the base and angle of principal system
of every rotated frame.
3.1.4 References
[1] Edward L. Wilson, Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of
Structures. A physical approach with emphasis on earthquake engineering.
CSI Computers and Structures Inc, Third Edition, reprint January 2002.
[2] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance -Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
38 Fespa IS
3.2 Space Frame Response Spectrum

Analysis

In this example the two-story, two-bay frame presented in Figure 3-4 is analyzed
using response spectrum analysis. The centre of mass at each story level (nodes
N10(0) and N11(1)) is eccentric and its coordinates are given in Table 3-2 along
with the members properties. Initially, frames eigenperiods are calculated and
spectral accelarations are attributed in each mode according to the response
spectrum used, which is a constant acceleration of 0.4g for all modes. This
spectrum is applied in the X direction of the structure only. Finally total
displacements are derived from CQC modal combination and the result is set in
comparison with [1]. Modal damping is assumed to be 4% for all modes.
Column Properties Beam Properties Mass Information

E=2.3910 KN/m
7 2
M=90.65 tn at nodes:
E=1.68107 KN/m2
Ax=0.46 m2 N10, N11
Ax=0.37 m2
Iy= 1.4410-2 m4 N10 at (11.58, 3.96, 7.01)
Iy= Iz=1.0810-2 m4
Iz=2.2510-2 m4 N11 at (11.58, 7.93, 7.01)
Table 3-2: Members properties and mass information.

There are some tricky points in order to model properly this frame in Fespa.
Since there isnt a diaphragm constraint command in the program, diaphragm is
simulated indirectly by adding steel diaphragm bracings in each story level with
very large axial and flexural moments of inertia. Also, in order to restrict in-
diaphragm bending deformation of the structural beams, their Iy moments of
inertia were multiplied by 1000. Vertical displacements of the diaphragm nodes
were reduced by assigning a very large axial stiffness to columns.
Spectral accelerations are introduced in Fespa by properly modifying the design
spectrum of EC8.1 [2]. In order to achieve Sa=0.4g for every eigenperiod, all
eigenperiods must correspond to the constant acceleration asegment of the
spectrum. Also, a large behavior factor of qz=100 is given in order to neglect
spectral accelerations in Z direction. Design spectrum parameters are
summarized in the following table:
ag S TB TC TD qx qz
0.16g 1.0 0.001 2.0 2.5 1.0 100
Table 3-3: Design spectrum parameters used.

Rigid Diaphragm added by adding steel diaphragm bracings.
Mass nodal assignment by applying concentrated loads.

In Table 3-4 the first four eigenperiods and ux displacement as calculated from
CQC modal combination of node N11 are compared with [1].
40 Fespa IS
Output Parameter Faspa Reference [1] Difference %

Mode 1 period, sec 0.2270 0.2271 0.044
Mode 2 period, sec 0.2156 0.2156 0
Mode 3 period, sec 0.0740 0.0733 0.955
Mode 3 period, sec 0.0737 0.0720 1.936
Ux of N11 in m 6.1310-3 6.1410-3 0.163
Table 3-4: Eigenperiods and displacement comparison.

It should be noticed that the small differences observed are due to the procedure
followed in Fespa to simulate storey level diaphragm.
3.2.4 References
[1] Peterson, F.E. EASE2, Elastic Analysis for Structural Engineering
Example Problem Manual, Engineering Analysis Corporation, Berkeley,
California, 1981.
[2] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance -Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
3.3 Response Spectrum Analysis of an

One-Storey Symmetrical Frame

In this example the double symmetrical 1-storey concrete frame building of
Figure 3-5 is analyzed dynamically with the response spectrum analysis method.
This example was first solved in [1] as a part of a research program
commissioned by the Greek EPPO (Earthquake Planning and Protection
Organisation).
Figure 3-5: Plan view of the 1-storey structure.

Material modulus of elasticity is E=29 GPa and poisson ratio v=0.2. Floor height
is 4m and cross-sectional dimensions of all four columns are 35/35 while beams
cross-sectional dimensions are 20/60. Static loads consist of the following load
cases:
Permanent distributed load of 8.64 KN/m at all beams.
Permanent load of 1.3 KN/m2 at slabs.
Live load of 2.0 KN/m2 at slabs.
42 Fespa IS
The response spectrum used in the dynamic analysis is defined according to the
design spectrum provided from the Greek code for Seismic Resistant Structures
EAK/2000 [2] and is presented in the following figure.
Figure 3-6: Response spectrum input.

To account for accidental eccentricity the centre of mass is displaced in the two
horizontal directions by ex= 0.26 m and ez= 0.21 m. Consequently four
different computer models are generated and all calculations are performed for
each one.

Torsional centre calculation.

First the calculation of the fictitious axis is performed and the results are
presented in Table 3-5. It should be noted that the fictitious axis coincides with
the real torsional axis as the building is a single-storey structure. The following
results concern the initial structure without including the accidental eccentricity.
FESPA Reference [1] Difference %

X(Po) 2.50 2.50 0
Fictitious Axis
Coordinates Z(P) 2.00 2.00 0
Angle of principal 0.00 0.00 0

system (degrees)
mI 3.20 3.20 0
Torsional radii (m)
mII 3.25 3.27 0.61
Table 3-5: Fictitious axis coordinates comparison.

Next, the dynamic response spectrum analysis is performed with the response
spectrum of Figure 3-6. For the internal forces calculation the simultaneous
action of the response spectrum in the two horizontal directions is considered.
The method of simultaneous values A. Gupta [3], [4] (Appendix II) is considered
for the probabilistic estimation of the combination of internal forces. In the
following figures the simultaneous internal forces (N, Mz, My) at column C1 as
calculated from Fespa are compared with those of reference [1]. The calculations
regard the structure with static eccentricity ex= +0.26 m and ez= 0. Also, the
static load combination G + 0.3Q is excluded from the analysis, meaning that
the internal forces derived are only due to the seismic load action.
Figure 3-7: Simultaneous internal forces at the bottom node of column C1.
44 Fespa IS
3.3.4 References
[1] Avramidis I., Anastasiadis S., Research Program Commissioned by the
Greek EPPO Development: a) Standards number of examples for the
support of the application of good EAK 2000 and control programs / y b)
New regulatory framework for earthquake protection of buildings and
devices for improving the phenomena second order, AUTH / Lab. applied
statics, 2003
[2] Greek code for Seismic Resistant Structures - EAK2000, 2003.
[3] A. K. Gupta and M. P. Singh, Design of column sections subjected to
three components of earthquake, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 41,
pp. 129-133, 1977.
[4] A. K. Gupta, Response Spectrum Method in Seismic Analysis and Design
of Structures, Blackwell Scientific Publications Cambridge MA, 1990.
3.4 Response Spectrum Analysis of a Real

Multistory Structure

In this example the 5-storey concrete building with floor plan view as presented
in Figure 3-8 is analyzed dynamically with the response spectrum analysis
method. This example was first solved in [1] as a part of a research program
commissioned by the Greek EPPO (Earthquake Planning and Protection
Organisation).
Figure 3-8: First floor plan view of the 5-storey structure.

Slab thickness is 0.15m while column and beam dimensions are obvious in the
following table.
Shear wall Shear wall
Floor Height Columns Beams
C6, C8 C7
1st 4m 50/50
25/60 25/200 25/300
2nd 5th 3m 40/40
Table 3-6: Column and beam dimension of the structure.

46 Fespa IS
Reinforced concrete modulus of elasticity is E=29 GPa and poisson ratio v=0.2.
Static loads consist of the following load cases:
Permanent distributed load of 8.64 KN/m at the perimeter beams of all
storeys.
Permanent distributed load of 5.04 KN/m at beams B2.1 and B5.1 of all
storeys.
Permanent distributed load of 3.60 KN/m at the perimeter beams of the final
storeys.
Permanent load of 1.3 KN/m2 at slabs.
Live load of 2.0 KN/m2 at slabs.
The response spectrum used in the dynamic analysis is defined according to the
design spectrum provided from the Greek code for Seismic Resistant Structures
EAK/2000 [2] and is presented in the following figure.
Figure 3-9: Response spectrum input.

To account for accidental eccentricity the centre of mass at each floor is
displaced in the two horizontal directions by ex= 0.5125 m and ez= 0.4125 m.
Consequently four different computer models are generated and all calculations
are performed for each one.

Torsional centre calculation.

First the calculation of the fictitious axis is performed and the results are
presented in table. Torsional radii are calculated with respect to the initial centre
of mass excluding any accidental eccentricity.
FESPA Reference [1] Difference %

X(Po) 3.16 3.14 0.64
Fictitious Axis
Coordinates (m) Z(P) 7.54 7.54 0
Angle of principal -2.05 -1.70 20.59

system (degrees)
mI 5.49 5.481 -0.16
Torsional radii (m)
mII 5.29 5.378 1.64
Radious of gyration
r 3.75 3.798 1.26
(m)
max(exi) 3.46 3.302 4.75
Design max(ezi) 5.63 5.734 1.813

eccentricities min(exi) 0.467 0.417 -11.99
min(ezi) 1.32 1.361 3.01
Table 3-7: Fictitious axis and torsional centre coordinates comparison.
3.4.4 References
[1] Avramidis I., Anastasiadis S., Research Program Commissioned by the
Greek EPPO Development: a) Standards number of examples for the
support of the application of good EAK 2000 and control programs / y b)
New regulatory framework for earthquake protection of buildings and
devices for improving the phenomena second order, AUTH / Lab. applied
statics, 2003
[2] Greek code for Seismic Resistant Structures - EAK2000, 2000.
48 Fespa IS
4
Design Examples
4.1 Slab Cracking Check

In this example a simply supported 125mm (d=92 mm, cnom=25 mm) reinforced
concrete slab spanning 4.5m is designed to support an imposed load of G=3.0
KN/m2. Concrete and steel yield stresses are fcu=25 MPa and fy=460 Mpa
respectively. Also, main longitudinal reinforcement is D16/25.
Figure 4-1: Slab geometry and reinforcement.

Slab static analysis and moment calculation.
Crack width calculation according to IS.
4.1.3 Comparison with Indian Standards
Figure 4-2: Cross section strain compatibility and internal forces equilibrium.
In Indian Standards (IS 456:2000) the calculations proceed as follows:
Load combination for serviceability checks: 1.0DL+1.0IL
Total dead load at slab: DL = G + 25.0h = 6.125 KN/m
Maximum applied service moment: M S = DLL2/8 =15.50 KNm
Modulus of elasticity of concrete (456:2000 6.2.3.1): Ec = 5000 f ck = 25 GPa
Modular ratio considering creep effects =Es/(0.5Ec)=16
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio: = As / bd = 0.00874
Distance from the point considered to the surface of the nearest longitudinal bar
(Figure 4-3): acr = 121.28 mm
Figure 4-3: Calculation of acr
{
Depth to neutral axis (Figure 4-2): x =a + (a ) 2 + 2a
0.5
} d = 37.46 mm
Distance between steel reinforcement and concrete forces: Z=d-(x-3) = 80 mm
Reinforcement stress: fS=MS/(ASZ) = 242 MPa

50 Fespa IS
Reinforcement stress: fC=(fS AS) /(0.5bx) = 10.41 MPa
Strain at soffit of concrete slab: 1=(fS/ES)(h-x)/(d-x) = 0.001946
Strain due to stiffening effect of concrete between cracks for crack widths of 0.2
mm (IS 456:2000, ANNEX F):
b(h x) 2 / ( 3ES AS (d x) ) = 0.000291

2 =
Average steel strain for calculation of crack width (IS 456:2000, ANNEX F):
m= 1 - 2 = 0.001655
Calculated crack width (IS 456:2000, ANNEX F):
( )
wk 3acr m / 1 + 2(acr c ) / ( h x ) = 0.188 mm
=
Results comparison is summarized in the following table:

Difference
Fespa IS
%
Servisability moment
15.50 15.50 0
MS (KNm)
x (m) 0.037 0.037 0
acr (m) 0.121 0.121 0
m (E-3) 1.655 1.655 0
Crack width wk (mm) 0.188 0.188 0
Table 4-1: Crack width results comparison
4.1.4 References
[1] IS 456:2000, Indian Standard, plain and reinforced concrete-code of
practice.
[2] Charles E. Reynolds and James C. Steedman, Examples of the Design of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings to BS 8110 (fourth edition), E & FN Spon,
1992.
4.2 Slab Calculation and Design

In this example the calculation of slabs internal forces that leads to the
reinforcement required is verified. For this reason the plan view of the building
presented in Figure 4-4 that consists of five 2-way, rigid slabs is considered.
Figure 4-4: Buildings plan view

The same example can be found in [1] where the provided data is the following:
The height of all slabs is h=0.16 m and effective depth equal in the two
directions d=0.143 m.
Slabs dimensions are obvious in the next table
52 Fespa IS
Slab lx (m) lz (m)

S1 4.65 5.60
S2 4.65 6.44
S3 5.27 3.55
S4 5.27 4.15
S5 5.27 4.30
Table 4-2: Slabss dimensions
Loading consists of the following load cases:
Permanent load: DL=1.20 KN/m2
Variable load: IL=5.0 KN/m2
Concrete characteristic strength: fck= 25 MPa
Steel characteristic yield stress: fyk= 500 MPa
After the derivation of bending moments at slabs span and supports are
calculated, tension reinforcement is calculated and is verified according to Indian
Standards (IS 456:2000)

Calculation of slab moments at span and supports
Design of slabs in bending according to IS 456:2000
Calculation of flexural reinforcement area required.
4.2.3 Bending Moment Calculation Comparison

with Hand Calculation
Comparison is carried out in terms of bending moments at slabs span and
support according to the Pieper-Martens method [2]. For brevity only slabs S1
and S4 are calculated, however the same methodology can be applied to all the
five slabs in the example.
Self-weight: gsw = 0.1625 = 4.00 KN/m2
Dead load: g = 4.00+1.2 = 5.20 KN/m2
Total design load (considering unit safety factors): q= 5.20+5.00=10.20 KN/m2
Test of Pieper-Martens method limits: p/q = 5.0/10.2 = 0.4 < 2/3 (accepted)
lx2
f
x = 23.18 mf x = q = 9.51 KNm
fx
l2
f z = 35.59 mf z = q x = 6.20 KNm
lz fz
Slab S1 (lz>lx): =
e = 1.204
lx 2
s = 11.47 ms = q lx = 19.24 KNm
x x
sx

lx2
s
z = 13.09 ms z = q = 16.85 KNm
sz
lz2
f
z = 22.58 mf z = q = 7.78 KNm
fz
l2
f x = 42.01 mf x = q z = 4.18 KNm
lx fx
Slab S4 (lz<lx): =
e = 1.270
lz 2
s = 13.41 ms = q lz = 13.10 KNm
z z
sz

lz2
sx = 17.50 msx = q = 10.04 KNm
sx
In the following table comparison with Fespa is presented where it is obvious

that the results almost coincide. The small differences are due to negligible error
in the reading of the tables of the Pieper-Martens method.
Moment Hand
Slab Fespa Difference %
(KNm) Calculation
mfx 9.61 9.51 1.05
S1 mfz 6.28 6.20 1.29
msx 19.24 19.24 0
msz 16.86 16.85 0.06
mfx 4.19 4.18 0.24
S4 mfz 7.81 7.78 0.39
msx 10.04 10.04 0
msz 13.13 13.10 0.23
Table 4-3: Bending moments comparison at slabs span and supports
54 Fespa IS
4.2.4 Design with Indian Standards

The calculation is performed in the span of slab S1 where MEd=9.51 KNm
Concrete force is derived as follows (IS 456:2000, 38.1 (c)):
Fcd=0.36 1.0xufck = 9000xu KN
The moment equilibrium equation which provides the depth of the compressive
zone is (IS 456:2000, 38.1 (c)):
Fcd(d-0.42xu) = MEd xu=0.0076 m
The maximum ratio of the compression zone for fy=500 Mpa is:
xu,max/d = 0.46 xu,max=0.066 m > xu=0.0076m
The arm length of the internal forces of concrete and steel is:
z=d-0.42xu = 0.1398 m
Finally, the required tension reinforcement area is:
AS1=MEd/(zfyd) = 1.57 cm2
Minimum tension reinforcement area for high strength deformed bars (IS
456:2000, 26.5.2.1):
ASmin=0.12h = 1.92 cm2
Reinforcement provided: 8/25 (As=2.01 cm2)
Final comparison is presented in Table 4-4.
Difference
Fespa IS
%
Tension calculated
1.60 1.57 1.91
reinforcement AS1 (cm2)
Minimum longitudinal
reinforcement AS1,min (cm2) 1.92 1.92 0
Provided tension
8/25 8/25 -
reinforcement
Table 4-4: Slab flexural design comparison with IS 456:2000
It should be noted that the difference in the calculated reinforcement is due to the
slightly bigger applied bending moment calculated in Fespa.
4.2.5 References
[1] Hans Schiever, Berechnung von Platten, mit dem Einspanngrad-
Verfahren, 3. Auflage, Werner-Verlag 1979.
[2] Pieper K. und Martens P., Durchlaufende vierseitig gestutzte Platten im

Hochbau, Beton und stahlbetonbau 1966, Heft 6.
[3] IS 456:2000, Indian Standard, plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice
56 Fespa IS
4.3 Seismic Weight Calculation of Slabs

In this example the floor seismic weight calculation according to Indian
Standards (IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, Table 8) is weight. For this reason the two
solid slabs S1 and S2 presented in Figure 4-5 are considered and each one is
loaded with the following loads:
S1: 1 KN/m2 permanent load and 3KN/m2 uniform variable load.
S2: 1 KN/m2 permanent load and 5KN/m2 uniform variable load.
Both slabs have the same thickness of h=0.15 m
Figure 4-5: Slabs geometrical characteristics.

Calculation of the percentage ILpc of the imposed load considered in
seismic weight calculation according to IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002.
Verification of the weight distribution in the perimetrical beams.

According to Table 8 of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 the ILpc coefficient for the two
slabs S1 and S2 is 0.25 and 0.50 respectively. So, every slabs weight for the
seismic load combination is:
S1: W1 = DL1+ILpc1IL1 = 250.15+1.0+ 0.253.0 = 5.50 KN/m2
S2: W2 = DL2+ILpc2IL2 = 250.15+1.0+ 0.505.0 = 7.25 KN/m2

The distribution of slabs loads in the perimetrical beams is presented graphically
in the next figure. Area A1 is attributed to beams B1.1, B 1.2, B3.1 and B3.2,
area A2 is concerns beams B4.1 and B5.1, while the contribution of area A3 in
load distribution concerns beam B2.1
Figure 4-6: Slabs load distribution

Simple calculations are performed in order to calculate beams loads
lx
=a = 1.83 m
1 + tan60
b = lx a = 3.17 m
1 2
A1 = ( a + ab )= 4.575 m 2
2
a
A2 =l y + ( l y 2a ) =3.971 m 2
2
A3 = lx l y 2 A1 A2 = 6.878 m 2
=q1 A=
1 W1 / l x 5.03 KN / m
=q2 A=
2 W1 / l y 5.46 KN / m
q3 =A3 (W1 + W2 ) / l y =21.92 KN / m
=q4 A=
1 W2 / l x 6.63 KN / m
=q5 A=
2 W2 / l y 7.20 KN / m
Comparison with Fespa is presented in Table 4-5.

58 Fespa IS
Difference
Fespa IS
%
Seismic weight of slab S1
5.50 5.50 0
(KN/m)
Seismic weight of slab S2
7.25 7.25 0
(KN/m)
Distributed load of beams
5.03 5.03 0
B1.1, B3.1 (KN/m)
Distributed load of beam
5.46 5.46 0
B4.1 (KN/m)
21.92 21.92 0
B2.1 (KN/m)
Distributed load of beams
6.63 6.63 0
B1.2, B3.2 (KN/m)
7.20 7.20 0
B5.1 (KN/m)
Table 4-5: Comparison of slabs load distribution
4.3.4 References
[1] IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, Indian Standard, plain and reinforced concrete-code
of practice
4.4 Beam Flexural and Shear Design

The purpose of this example is to verify beam flexural and shear design
according to Indian standards. For this reason a simply supported 30/50 T-beam,
similar to [2], with a 20 cm thick and 60 cm wide flange is shown in Figure 4-7.
Beams effective depth is d=42.5 cm. As far as material properties are concerned
concrete characteristic strength is fck=30 Mpa and characteristic yield strength of
steel is fyk=460 MPa.
The beam is loaded symmetrically with third-point vertical dead and live
concentrated loads. Load values are 10 KN and 40 KN for the dead and live load
respectively. For simplicity reasons only the static load combination is
considered without including beams self-weight.
Figure 4-7: Beams model and cross-section.

Design of beams according to IS 456:2000
Calculation of shear reinforcement area required.
60 Fespa IS
Application of the minimum flexural reinforcement for beams according to

code requirements.
Application of the minimum shear reinforcement according to code
requirements.

4.4.3.1 Flexural Design
In IS 456-2000 table 18 the partial factors for both permanent and variable loads
are f= 1.50. Consequently the applied load is:
Vu=1.50(DL + IL) = 75.0 KN
The applied design moment in the mid-span is:
Mu = PuL/3 = 150.0 KNm
xu,max/d = 0.469 xu,max=0.1995 m < hf=0.2m
So the depth of neutral axis is smaller than the depth of the slab flange in any
case.
Fcd=0.36bxfck = 6480x KN
zone is (IS 456:2000, 38.1 (c)):
Fcd(d-0.42x) = MEd x=0.058 m
z=d-0.42x = 0.40 m
AS1=MEd/(zfyd) = 9.36 cm2
Minimum tension reinforcement area (IS 456:2000, 26.5.1.1):
ASmin=0.85bd/fy = 2.36 cm2
Finally, the provided reinforcing bars are 418 (10.18 cm2).
The comparison with Fespa is summarized in the following table:
Difference
Fespa IS
%
Design applied moment
150.0 150.0 0
MEd (KNm)
Neutral axis depth x (m) 0.060 0.058 3.44
Tension calculated
9.30 9.36 -0.64
Provided tension
418 418 -
reinforcement
Table 4-6: Flexural design comparison with IS 456:2000
4.4.3.2 Shear Design

The applied design shear is: Vu = 75.0 KN
Nominal shear stress in beam (IS 456:2000, 40.1):
v=Vu/b/d = 0.588 MPa
Maximum shear stress for M30 is (IS 456:2000, table 20)
max=3.5 Pa
The design shear strength of the concrete for provided reinforcement area
AS=10.18 cm2 near the beams support is (IS 456:2000, table 19):
c=0.604 Pa
=1.0 as the beam has zero axial compressive loads. So, the design shear strength
is: (IS 456:2000, 40.2.2):
cd =c=0.605 Pa > v=0.588 Pa
Finally the required shear reinforcement area per meter is (IS 456:2000, 40.4
(a)):
Asw
=
(
Vu cd b d ) <0, the minimum shear reinforcement is applied
s 0.87 f y d
Minimum shear reinforcement is (IS 456:2000, 26.5.1.6):
Asw 0.4 b A
= = 3.32 cm2/m > sw = 0.02 cm2/m
s min 0.87 f y s
62 Fespa IS
And the provided stirrups are 28/30 (3.35 cm2).

Difference
Fespa IS
%
Design applied shear VEd
75.0 75.0 0
(KN)
Nominal shear stress v
0.588 0.588 0
(MPa)
Design shear strength of
0.586 0.586 0
concrete c (MPa)
Minimum shear
reinforcement Asw/s 3.32 3.32 0
(cm2/m)
Provided shear
28/30 28/30 -
reinforcement
Table 4-7: Shear design comparison with IS 456:2000
4.4.4 References
practice.
[2] Safe Verification manual, CSI Computers and Structures Version 12,
December 2010.
4.5 Column Flexural and Shear Design

In this example column flexural and shear design is verified according to Indian
standards. Generally, finding the demanded column longitudinal steel bars is a
trial and error procedure where reinforcement ratio is increased gradually until
the capacity ratio demand is fulfilled. This is a hard task to be verified by hand,
so only the final outcome is checked.
Figure 4-8: Columns cross section to be checked

A 3 m length, fully fixed 0.50 x 0.45 cantilever column is considered and its
effective depth is d=6.0 cm. As far as material properties are concerned concrete
characteristic strength is fck=25 Mpa and characteristic yield strength of steel is
fyk=500 MPa with total reinforcement area ratio As/Acs=1.533%. Columns cross
section and reinforcement detail to be checked are presented in Figure 4-8.

Design of Columns according to IS 456:2000
Calculation of shear reinforcement area required.
Calculation of the minimum and maximum reinforcing area and bars
spacing.
4.5.3 Flexural Design

For this checking column is loaded with a tip vertical concentrated dead load
Py=-900 KN and a tip horizontal dead load Px=90 KN. Also, for simplicity
64 Fespa IS
reasons only the static load combination is considered without including beams
self-weight.
The purpose of checking column design is to define the capacity factor and to
confirm that this factor is greater that unit. For the given column section the
derived capacity factor is validated in this section.
To define the capacity point the hypothesis that concrete reaches its ultimate
strain cu=0.0035 in the outer section layer, is assumed. Afterwards, an iterative
procedure is followed in order to define the depth of the neutral axis x, where
equilibrium of internal forces is achieved.
1st iteration (x=h/2=0.25 m)

Using the parabolic stress distribution of concrete, concrete compressive force is
derived from equation:
Fcd=0.81xbfcd = -1290.18 KN
Taking in account the linear distribution of deformations along the cross section,
stains at any reinforcement level ys,i can be calculated according to the relation:
s1 = 0.00266
0.0035 ( x ys ,i )
s ,i = s 2 =
0.00266
x =
s3 0
Consequently, rebar axial forces can be easily be calculated according to the

steel material stress-strain law and reinforcement area.
Fs1 = 682.61 KN

min ( Es As ,i s ,i , f sy / s ) Fs 2 =
Fs ,i = 682.61 KN
F = 0
s3
Sections axial internal force is derived by adding the contributions of each
material. Also, internal moment is calculated by adding the individual moment
contributions in terms of the sections centroid.
N
= d Fcd + Fs1 + Fs 2 + Fs3 = 1290.18 KN
M d = Fcd ( h / 2 0.461x ) + Fs1 ( h / 2 ys 1 ) + Fs 2 ( h / 2 0.461x ) =
447.11 KNm
The point (Nd, Md) = (-1290.18, 447.11) is a point lying on the sections capacity
interaction curve. The demanded capacity point is the certain point in the
interaction curve that is situated at the extension of the external loading vector.
After performing more iterations, which are omitted herein, internal equilibrium
in the capacity point is directly presented:
Final iteration, capacity point (x=0.2766 m)

Concrete compressive force is:
Fcd=0.81xbfcd = -1427.45 KN
Reinforcing rebars strains:
s1 = 0.00207
s 2 = 0.00274
= 0.00034
s3
Reinforcing rebar axial forces:
Fs1 = 649.23 KN
Fs 2 = 682.61 KN
F = 20.67 KN
s3
So internal forces are:
Nd = 1481.5 KN
M d = 444.87 KNm
Also, the applied design load and the capacity check for IS are:
Pu =1.50 ( 900 ) =1350 KN N d
M u = 1.50 90 3.0= 405 KNm M d
For similarity reasons, although the safety factor for dead loads in IS is 1.5, the
same design applied loads are considered. Hence, the capacity check in IS is
similar to the previous one.
The comparison between Fespa and hand calculations is briefly presented In
Table 4-8.
Hand Difference
Fespa
Calculation %
Capacity Moment Md
443.35 444.87 0.34
(KNm)
Capacity Axial Force
-1477.85 -1481.5 0.25
Nd (KN)
Capacity Factor 1.0947 1.0975 0.26
Table 4-8: Capacity factor comparison.

66 Fespa IS
4.5.4 Shear Design

For shear design column is considered to be located at the bottom storey of a
building and is loaded with a tip vertical concentrated dead load Py=-2000 KN
and a tip horizontal dead load Px=50 KN. Similar to bending design only the
static load combination is considered without including beams self-weight.
For shear design the load combination considered is:
1.50DL+1.50IL
Hence, the applied design shear is: Vu = 75.0 KN, while the applied axial
compression force is: Pu = 3000.0 KN
Nominal shear stress is: (IS 456:2000, 40.1):
v=Vu/b/d = 0.379 MPa
max=2.8 Pa
Flexural analysis results induce that only one D20 bar (As=3.14 cm2) bar is in
tension. So, concretes design shear strength is (IS 456:2000, table 19):
c=0.29 Pa
Factor that multiplies design shear strength of column according to the axial
compression is (IS 456:2000, table 19):
3Pu
=1 + =3 > 1.5 =1.5
Ag f ck
So, the design shear strength is:

cd =c=0.435 Pa > v=0.379 Pa
Finally the required shear reinforcement area per meter is (IS 456:2000, 40.4
(a)):
Consequently, the minimum shear reinforcement is required is (IS 456:2000,
26.5.3.2 (c)):
Minimum distance in mm: sv,min=min (bmin, 16Dmin, 300) = 224 mm
Minimum stirrups diameter: Dmin=0.25 Dmax =5 mm
Finally, the required stirrups are 28/22.
Difference
Fespa IS
%
Design applied shear VEd
75.0 75.0 0
(KN)
Nominal shear stress v
0.379 0.379 0
(MPa)
0.435 0.435 0
concrete cd (MPa)
Provided shear
28/22 28/22 -
reinforcement
4.5.5 References
practice.
68 Fespa IS
4.6 Footing Design in Flexure, Shear and

Punching

In this example a single footing is designed under static load combinations in
bending, shear and punching. Also, all the necessary ground checks, namely
maximum eccentricity, maximum sliding resistance and maximum ground
pressure are performed. A 1.5m height cantilever is founded in clay with
allowable ground pressure allow= 200 MPa and friction angle =280. Columns
tip is loaded with the following permanent loads:
Vertical load: Py = 500 KN
Horizondal load: Px = 100 KN
Footings box height is h1=40 cm, while it has zero inclined height and its plan
view is presented in Figure 4-9. Finally, concretes grade is M30 and
reinforcements characteristic yield stress is fy=500 Mpa.
Figure 4-9: Footings plan view

In Fespa footing is simulated with four beams on elastic ground. However, the
internal forces results printed in programs report regard the whole footing, while
the simulation beam concept is used in bending and shear reinforcement

calculation.

Footing analysis and internal forces calculation.
Ground checks (maximum eccentricity, maximum sliding resistance and
maximum ground pressure)
Flexural footing design according to Indian Standards.
Footing design in shear according to Indian Standards.
Footing design in punching according to Indian Standards.
4.6.3 Ground checks

All ground checks are performed with static load combination (IS 456:2000,
20.2): 0.9DL + 1.0IL.
So, Px=90 KN, Py=-450 KN
Eccentricity check:
Px h
ex
= = 0.3
Py
2
e 1 ex 1
=
x
0.15
= , =
= 0.023
Lx 6 L
x 9
Bearing pressure at footings centre:

Py
0
= = 56.25KN
Lx Lz
Maximum and minimum bearing pressure:

ex
max = 0 1 + 6 = 106.88 KPa < allow = 200 KPa
Lx
e
min = 0 1 6 x = 5.63 KPa < allow = 200 KPa
Lx
Verification against sliding
Horizontal sliding resistance due to friction:

70 Fespa IS
Py tan
RHd = =170.91 > d =Px =90 KN
1.4
Horizontal sliding resistance due to passive grounds pressure:
1
R pd = w k p H 2 Lz = 95.86 KN
2
Hence, total sliding resistance is:
R = RHd + R pd = 266.77 KN
The comparison with Fespa for the ground checks is summarized in the
following table:
Difference
Fespa IS
%
Eccentricity e (m) 0.30 0.30 0
Maximum bearing pressure

106.81 106.88 -0.07
max (KPa)
Minimum bearing pressure
5.69 5.63 1.07
min (KPa)
Sliding resistance R (KN) 266.74 266.77 -0.01
Table 4-10: Ground checks comparison

It should be noted that small differences in the calculation of bearing pressures
are due to the fact that in Fespa footing rigidity is considered by assigning very
large flexural moments of inertia at the simulation beams. However, real
behavior requires footings flexibility to be taken in account in the numerical
model.
4.6.4 Flexural Design

For design in bending the load combination considered is:
1.50DL+1.50IL
Bending moment at columns edge is calculated by integrating bearing pressures
under the footing with the appropriate load factor. For the current load
combination maximum pressure value is max=178.13 kPa and pressure at the
right edge of the column is 1=106.41 kPa. Consequently, bending moment at
this point is:
2
L b
M u x x 1 + max =
= Ly 222.85 KNm
2 6 3

Fcd=0.36 Lyxufck = 43200xu KN
zone is (IS 456:2000, 38.1 (c)):
Fcd(d-0.42xu) = Mu xu=0.015 m
xu,max/d = 0.46 xu,max=0.162 m > xu=0.015m
z=d-0.42xu = 0.3367 m
AS1=Mu/(zfyd) = 15.22 cm2
Minimum tension reinforcement area (IS 456:2000, 26.5.1.1):
ASmin=0.85bd/fy = 23.32 cm2
Reinforcement provided: 3010/ (As=23.56 cm2)
Final comparison is presented in Table 4-11.
Difference
Fespa IS
%
Design Bending moment
222.82 222.85 -0.01
Mu (KNm)
Tension calculated
15.30 15.22 0.53
Minimum longitudinal
reinforcement AS,min (cm2) 23.30 23.32 -0.08
Provided tension
3010 3010 -
reinforcement
Table 4-11: Flexural design comparison with IS 456:2000
4.6.5 Shear Design

For shear design the load combination considered is:
1.50DL+1.50IL
72 Fespa IS
In the current case shear stresses are not uniform along footing and shear checks
are carried out at distance equal to the effective depth d from the face of the
support (IS 456:2000, 40.5.3):.
For the current load combination maximum pressure value is max=178.13 kPa
and pressure at distance d from the right edge of the column is 1=135.93 kPa.
Consequently, shear force at this point is:
L b
Vu ,d = ( 1 + max ) x x d / 2 Ly = 318.45 KN
2
Nominal shear stress in beam (IS 456:2000, 40.1):
v,d=Vu,d/Ly/d = 0.232 MPa

max=3.5 Pa
The design shear strength of the concrete for provided reinforcement area
AS=23.56 cm2 near the beams support is (IS 456:2000, table 19):
c=0.307 Pa
=1.0 as footing has zero axial compressive loads. So, the design shear strength
is: (IS 456:2000, 40.2.2):
cd =c=0.309 Pa > v,d=0.232 Pa
Consequently footing doesnt require any shear reinforcement.
Difference
Fespa IS
%
Design applied shear Vu,d
317.86 318.45 -0.19
(KN)
Nominal shear stress v,d
0.232 0.233 0
(MPa)
0.307 0.307 0
concrete c (MPa)
4.6.6 Punching Design

For punching shear design the load combination considered is:
1.50DL+1.50IL
Figure 4-10: Critical region for design against punching

The critical side of the square critical region is (IS 456:2000, 31.6.1):
Lcr= b+d =0.643 m
The critical area of punching shear application beneath the column is:
A = Lcr2 = 0.413 m2
Punching shear stress is calculated at every critical side of the critical region and
then the maximum one is compared with footings shear resistance. In this
example the maximum shear stress is calculated at the upper side. Actually,
shear force at the upper side of the critical region is derived from analysis:
Vmax=314.72 KN
Considering the actual contributing footing area, this shear is modified as
follows:
Lx ( Lz + Lcr )
V=
Vmax 271.56 KN
=
Lx ( Lz + Lcr ) ( Lx Lcr ) / 2
2
So, maximum shear stress at the edge of the critical region is:
V
v ,max
= = 1.231 MPa
Lcr d
Concretes resistance to shear (IS 456:2000, 31.6.3.1):

c =0.25 f ck = 1.37 MPa
74 Fespa IS
Reduction coefficient of concretes punching resistance (IS 456:2000,

31.6.3.1):
ks = (0.5 + ) 1
c ks = 1
Finally, the punching shear check is as follows:
v ,max < ks c 1.07 MPa < 1.37 MPa
Consequently, footing is verified against punching and no shear reinforcement is
required.
Difference
Fespa IS
%
Design punching shear V
271.56 271.56 0
(KN)
Maximum shear stress
1.231 1.231 0
(MPa)
Critical shear resistance c
1.37 1.37 0
(MPa)
Table 4-13: Punching shear design comparison with IS 456:2000
4.6.7 References
practice.
[2] Drken/Dehne, Grundbau in Beispielen Teil 2, Werner-Verlag 1995,
Dsseldorf, Germany
Appendix I
Elastic axis, centre of rotation
General
The idea of the centre of rotation is first met in the first seismic code of 1959
which was based on the theory of single storey models and the calculations were
undertaken almost always without the use of relevant software. The elastic centre
of rotation was defined as the point where the total stiffness of the vertical
bearing members, columns and walls (spread all over the structure), is
concentrated. In single storey buildings, the method was successfully applied,
since the stiffness of each member (wall or column) were derived from simple
expressions, without taking into account interaction factors or compatibility
factors of the several floors. In cases of multi-storey buildings, this theory was
also valid, by considering a multi-storey building as a series of single storey
buildings placed successively on top of each other, without taking into account
the compatibility of displacements of the floors. Therefore, this method only
estimates the behaviour of complex spatial models without offering precise
information.
More advanced methods of analysis do not require analytical definition of the
centre of rotation for estimating the action effects applied at each bearing
member. Nevertheless, for applying the criteria of torsional rigidity and
regularity in plan of EC8-1 4.2.3.2, analytical calculation of the centre of
rotation and of the radius of distortion is required.
In the general case of a multi-storey spatial model, where the seismic behaviour
of each horizontal level interacts with the in height response of the overall
structure, a more wide definition of the centre of rotation is needed. Such a
definition is given by C. Anastasiades and T. Makario, in 0, with the use of the
fictitious elastic axis and the centre of rotation. This method for defining the
centre of rotation is described in the following paragraphs.
76 Fespa IS
Definition of the fictitious elastic axis

Fundamental loadings F and M
The fundamental loading F is composed by the horizontal forces F1, F2, , FN
which act on the horizontal diaphragms floors. These forces follow a triangular
distribution pattern and their values are derived from the following expression:
mi z i
Fi = 10000 N
i, j = 1,2,, N (number of floors)
m
j =1
j zj
The fundamental loading M is composed by the torsional pairs Mi = +1.0Fi

which are derived from the forces Fi with unary lever. In Figure I-1 the loadings
F and M are given.
Figure I-1: The fundamental loadings F and M.
Calculation of the actual or fictitious axis

For the definition of the actual or fictitious elastic axis, the building is loaded
with the loading which causes displacements and rotations at the diaphragm yi
equal to ux(yi), uz(yi), y(yi).
The coordinates of the actual or fictitious axis derived from the expressions:
u zy ( yi ) u yz ( yi )
P0 x p =
= ,z p
yy ( yi ) yy ( yi )
where y is the diaphragm closest to the height y0=0.8H, with H equal to the total
height of the structure, as given in Figure I-2.
The torsion of the building is optimum when the square average value of the
angles of rotation 2 = (12+22++2) / of the floors is minimised. After
thorough investigation of a series of regular dual systems it was concluded that
the value of y0 varies from 0.75 to 0.85. That is, it may be assumed that
y0=0.8. The torsion of the building may become optimum when the angle of
rotation of all floors is equal to zero at the height y=0.8.
The point P0 depends only on the geometrical characteristics of the structure and
is not affected by the type or size of loadings.
Figure I-2: Seismic loads passing through the fictitious axis cause the minimum
torsional distress on the building.
Calculation of the angle between the principal axes

The loading F is successively applied to the vertical levels X=Xp and Z=Zp and
the displacement of the structure is then calculated, that is Ex and Ez
respectively. If uxx(yi), uzx(yi) and uxz(yi), uzz(yi) (uxz = uzx due to the
displacement compatibility), are the displacements of Po at the level y0=0.8H
under Ex and Ez, then the principal direction of the building is defined by the
acute angle of the following expression:
78 Fespa IS
2 u xz ( yi )
tan 2a =
u xx ( yi ) u zz ( yi )
Figure I-3: Rotation of the principal axes of the plan view with regard to the
global coordinate system
Calculation of the radius of distortion I and II

By using the angle of the principal axes of the building, the principal
conditions EI, EII and EIII are calculated with respect to the following
expressions:
FI FI
E =
+ E X cos + EZ sin
10000 10000
F F
II E X sin + II EZ cos
EII =
10000 10000
which refer to the loading of the system in the principal levels (I, ) and (, ),
where is the vertical principal axis.
The conditions , and , refer to the loading of the system under the
torsional pairs 1.0FI, 1.0FI, and are calculated with respect to the following
expressions:
FI FII
E III , I = EY , E III , II = EY
10000 10000
In and the system is imposed to displacement in the directions and at
level y0=0.8. The relevant displacements uI and uII are calculated by the
expressions:
u I = u X2 , I + u Z2 , I , u II = u X2 , II + u Z2 , II
Then the radius of distortion is calculated as follows:
u II ( y 0 )
I =
III , I ( y 0 )
u I ( y0 )
II =
III , II ( y 0 )
where , and , are the angles of rotation at level y0 in E, and E,

respectively. The radius of distortion is used for the evaluation of the torsional
behaviour of the structure. Thus for:
I2 + e I2 < r 2 or II2 + eII2 < r 2
the structure is characterised as torsionally flexible in the relevant direction of
loading, where r is the radius of gyration of the floor with respect to the centre of
gravity. Moreover the radius of distortion is used for the precise calculation of
the equivalent static eccentricities ef, er for the lateral force method of analysis.
Relevant application in Fespa

According to this method, as described above, the definition of the centre of
rotation is a process which requires a great number of calculations, since the
analysis of the structure is required to be undertaken for three loadings. This
process is included in Fespa and it is a part of the analysis of the structure.
80 Fespa IS
Figure I-4: The criterion of torsional flexible structures.
Buildings with actual or fictitious axis

In the table below the categories of buildings that possess actual or fictitious
elastic axis are given.
Actual elastic axis Fictitious elastic axis
Every single storey building Every single storey or multi-
with ensured diaphragmatic storey building with ensured
With action. diaphragmatic action.
Special (and rare) categories
of multi-storey buildings.
Multi-storey buildings in Buildings without ensured
Without general. diaphragmatic action.
Characteristics of the actual and fictitious axis

In the table below the characteristics of the actual and fictitious elastic axis are
given.
Actual elastic axis Fictitious elastic axis
1. The static response of the system is 1. The static response of the system is
as a result of the superposition of two as a result of the superposition of two
situations of prevailing bending at situations of optimum bending at
levels (, ) and (, ) and of one levels (, ) and (, ) and of one
situation of prevailing torsion about situation of optimum torsion about
axis . axis .
2. Possible system of horizontal forces 2. Possible system of horizontal forces
F that are contained at axis , causes F that are contained at axis , causes
displacement without rotation of the displacement with optimum rotation
floors (bending axis). The displacement of the floors (axis of optimum
follows the direction of forces, when bending). The displacement at level
applied along direction or . yo=0.8H follows the direction of
forces, when applied along direction
or .
3. Possible system of torsional 3. Possible system of torsional
moments M=1.0F causes rotation of moments M=1.0F which causes
the floors about axis (rotation axis). rotation with optimum displacement
of the floors about axis (axis of
optimum rotation).
From the above characterizations, if the seismic actions pass through the
fictitious elastic axis, then the torsion imposed to the floors of the building is
minimized (optimum rotation of the building), while by increasing the distance
of the application point of seismic actions from the fictitious axis, the torsion
imposed to the floors is increased.
Since it is assumed that the seismic actions are applied at the centre of mass of
the system, the distance of the fictitious elastic axis to the centre of mass is of
crucial importance. In other words, when the distance of the centre of mass
increases with regard to P0 of the elastic axis at each floor, then the structural
eccentricity of the system is also increased.
According to the aforementioned, it is of upmost importance that the designing
engineer obtains a method for minimizing the distance between the centre of
mass and the fictitious axis.
References
storey Buildings: Theory, The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 7, 33-
55 (1998).
storey Buildings: Applications, The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 7,
57-71 (1998).
[3] E.M. Marino and P.P. Rossi, Exact Evaluation of the Location of the
Optimum Torsion Axis, The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, DOI:10.1002/tal.252.July 2003.
82 Fespa IS
Appendix II
Method of probable
simultaneous values
For the calculation of probable simultaneous values of action effects, in EC8-1

precise methods are recommended instead of the quadratic superposition. See
EC8-1 4.3.3.5.1(2)c.
Gupta ellipse
The probable simultaneous values of action effects are calculated, according to
. Gupta for the case of two action effects (e.g. and ), in the interior of an
ellipse or in the interior of a spatial ellipse for three action effects (My, Mz, N:
biaxial bending of columns), or in the interior of a general ellipsoid diagram for
more action effects (My1, Mz1, My2, Mz2, N: buckling control of columns). The
definition of the simultaneously acting action effects is then possible according
to this method and therefore for example, the dimensioning of column in bending
requires the control of 6 sets of action effects:
1. Nmax, Mysim, Mzsim

2. Nmin, Mysim, Mzsim
3. Nsim, Mymax, Mzsim
4. Nsim, Mymin, Mzsim
5. Nsim, Mysim, Mzmax
6. Nsim, Mysim, Mzmin
Calculation of the simultaneous action effects

For example, in case that the first of the aforementioned sets needs to be defined,
then the corresponding values of action effects are as follows:
N max = + N x2 + N y2 + N z2
N x M y, x + N y M y, y + N z M y, z
M y , sim =
N max
N x M z,x + N y M z, y + N z M z,z
M z , sim =
N max
In the general case of dynamic analysis, where modal superposition is needed,

the process described below is followed for the calculation of the simultaneous
action effects.
The possible extreme values of exA of the random response parameter may be
taken from the expression:
ex A = ( ij Ai A j )
i j
where Ai, Aj are the modal values of while the value of ij is the correlation
factor of mode shapes i and j and is taken from the expression:
8 2 (1 + r ) r 3 2
ij =
(
10 4 1 r 2 )
2
+ 4 2 r (1 + r )2
The possible simultaneous value of exA, , of another response parameter B is

given from the expression:
PAB
B, A =
exA
where
PA = PB = ij ( Ai , x B j , x + Ai , y B j , y + Ai , z B j , z )
i j
is the correlation factor of , and (Ai,x, Bj,x), (Ai,y, Bj,y), (Ai,z, Bj,z), i, j = 1, 2,
, N the modal values of and for the seismic action in directions x, y, z
respectively.
Relevant application in Fespa

Fespa calculates with the method of simultaneous values, the action effects
that act at the cross-section of a column or wall.
84 Fespa IS
References
[1] A. K. Gupta and M. P. Singh, Design of column sections subjected to
three components of earthquake, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol.
41, pp. 129-133, 1977.
[2] A. K. Gupta, Response Spectrum Method in Seismic Analysis and Design
of Structures, Blackwell Scientific Publications Cambridge MA, 1990

Fespa Is Verification Examples

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fespa Is Verification Examples

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The RC expert software

for the analysis and design of earthquake

An insight into the analysis background

1.1 Plane Truss Static Analysis .................................................................... 8

1.2 Space Truss Static Analysis ................................................................. 11

1.3 Plane Frame Static Analysis ................................................................ 14

1.4 Space Frame Static Analysis ................................................................ 16

1.5 Static Analysis of a Frame with non-Symmetrical Column Section . 19

1.6 Static Analysis of a Beam on Elastic Foundation ............................... 22

1.6.3 Numerical Results ........................................................................... 22

1.7 Static Analysis of a Grid on Elastic Foundation ................................ 24

1.8 Fictitious Axis Estimation .................................................................... 27

2 Modal Analysis Examples ............................................. 31

2.1 Plane Frame Eigenvalue Analysis ....................................................... 31

2.2 Space Frame Eigenvalue Analysis ....................................................... 33

3 Dynamic Analysis Examples ......................................... 35

3.1 Single Symmetric Frame Response Spectrum Analysis .................... 35

3.2 Space Frame Response Spectrum Analysis ........................................ 38

3.2.2 Programs Features Tested.............................................................. 39

3.3 Response Spectrum Analysis of an One-Storey Symmetrical Frame41

3.4 Response Spectrum Analysis of a Real Multistory Structure ........... 45

4 Design Examples ........................................................... 48

4.1 Slab Cracking Check ............................................................................ 48

4.2 Slab Calculation and Design ................................................................ 51

4.3 Seismic Weight Calculation of Slabs ................................................... 56

4.4 Beam Flexural and Shear Design ........................................................ 59

4.4.3 Comparison with Indian Standards ................................................. 60

4.5 Column Flexural and Shear Design .................................................... 63

4.6 Footing Design in Flexure, Shear and Punching ................................ 68

Generally problems are separated in two main categories:

Figure 1-1: Local axes of columns and beams

1.1 Plane Truss Static Analysis

Member Area (cm2)

Node Load (KN)

Table 1-2: Nodal loads

Figure 1-1: Plane truss geometry.

1.1.2 Programs Features Tested

1.1.3 Numerical Results Comparison

Table 1-3: Comparison of axial force in plane truss members.

1.2 Space Truss Static Analysis

Figure 1-2: Space truss geometry.

Member Area (cm2)

Node Load (KN)

Table 1-5: Nodal loads

1.2.2 Programs Features Tested

1.2.3 Numerical Results Comparison

Axial Force (KN) Axial Force (KN)

Table 1-6: Comparison of member axial forces.

1.3 Plane Frame Static Analysis

Figure 1-3: Plane frame geometry.

Member Moment of Inertia

In order to set a 2D problem in Fespa the following actions should be performed

1.3.2 Programs Features Tested

1.3.3 Numerical Results Comparison

Table 1-9: Bending moment results comparison.

1.4 Space Frame Static Analysis

Figure 1-4: Space frame geometry.

Table 1-10: Members inertial characteristics.

1.4.2 Programs Features Tested

1.4.3 Numerical Results

Reference Difference Difference

1.5 Static Analysis of a Frame with non-

1.5.1 Problem Description