6/18/2018

How to Verify SE Software

SAM RUBENZER, PE, SE

• Founded FORSE Consulting in 2010
• Assists structural engineers on a wide variety of designs with an assortment of
structural engineering design software

FORSE
• Many years of experience as licensed engineers
• FORSE has worked hard to learn each of the software programs used by SEs and
have created many presentations comparing the attributes of different software tools.
• Worked as consultants with software companies teaching others about SE software

1
 6/18/2018

Abstract
• Structural Engineers are relying more and more on structural engineering software
for analysis and design. Understanding the different options available for modeling is
paramount in ensuring the best model is created to imitate reality and give engineers
the best possible design
• This presentation reviews various methods for verifying the loads defined on models,
verifying the analysis results, and finally, verifying the design check made for
members within the model
• It is easy to make the assumption that all structural engineering software solves
engineering problems correctly; however, unfortunately there are errors. Sometimes
the error is in programming, and sometimes it is user error. Engineers must have a
good understanding apart from software to spot these errors

A Word About Software

• Structural engineers rely on finite elements models for analysis and

design
• Understanding the different options available for modeling is paramount
• Best model is created to imitate reality and give engineers the best
possible design

2
 6/18/2018

Is your software model a good

representation of reality?

Structural engineering software

• Software is continuously changing our ability to do many things in our lives, personal
and professional

• This is no different with structural engineering. Software will make you a better engineer
as long as you use the software as a tool, and don't become an "operator"

• Never let the software think for you, only let it think faster

• Never let the software decide for you. Period.

3
 6/18/2018

Structural engineering software

• Never assume the software is doing
anything correctly

• Never assume the software is making

the same decisions you would make

• Software programs are tools, you are

the engineer, never forget that

Structural engineering software

• Never assume the software is correct, or as you would have done it “by hand”
• Examples
o certain programs will distribute load one-way
▪ regardless of the span aspect ratio, even 100:1
SR1

o automatic features are by far the most dangerous

▪ settings aren't apparent when using software, in the manual
o default settings are dangerous
▪ create a false sense of a “standard“

4
Slide 8

SR1 Please provide a couple of

examples of such automatic
features
Sam Rubenzer, 6/15/2018
 6/18/2018

Structural engineering software: ”do you

agree with the programmer?"
• Structural engineers also rely on:
• Education, experience, and guidance from the code
• Your good engineering judgment is still invaluable

• When programmers develop software for us to use, they are relying on codes and
their own judgment
• You will find that your judgment isn't always in agreement with another structural engineer's
• Don’t use a feature you don’t agree with
SR2

• Don’t assume other users agree …

…so it must be OK?

need to know what we don't know…

5
Slide 9

SR2 Provide examples of

controversial features
Sam Rubenzer, 6/15/2018
 6/18/2018

Stated Learning Objectives

• Verify loads applied to models
• Verify analysis results
• Verify design checks
IN ORDER TO VERIFY, YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT
THE PROGRAM IS DOING

Let’s start with philosophy

“Those that wish to succeed must ask the
right preliminary questions” - Aristotle

“Good and [bad] both increase at compound

interest. That is why the little decisions you
and I make every day are of such infinite
importance.” - C.S. Lewis

6
 6/18/2018

Verify loads applied to models

• Manually determine loads on structure

• Approximate distribution
• Know software load generator capabilities
• Review applied loads after load generator application

Verify loads applied to models

7
 6/18/2018

Verify loads applied to models

• Manually determine loads on structure

• Approximate distribution

• HAND CALCS or SPREADSHEETS

Verify loads applied to models

Approximate load and distribution

8
 6/18/2018

Verify loads applied to models

Approximate load and distribution

Verify loads - Gravity Load Generators?

• Several programs distribute load without checking span
• How far can load be distributed?
• Dead
• Self weight based on members modeled - don’t forget about the elements not modeled, often referred to
as super imposed dead load
• Live
• Live load keyed to ASCE table based on floor usage
• reducible of not reducible is not the software’s decision to make
• Snow or Roof Live load
• No automated snow drift generators or ponding load generators on the market

9
 6/18/2018

Verify loads - General

• when using a structural analysis and design software package, there is a tendency to
assume that the program is correctly generating the loads
• software programmers are very good at interpreting and implementing the codes
• can’t automate every condition that exists in our complex architectural world
• to understand this completely as it pertains to your projects
• best to know where software programmers get the loads for the load generators.
• specifically, what sections of the code are used for load generators in common
software packages.

Verify loads - Questions

• When an engineer chooses to generate wind loads, what sections of the code are
considered? For example:
• How many directions is the load applied?
• Can enclosed, partially enclosed, and open structures be considered?
• When generating seismic loads what code provisions are considered? For example:
• Using approximate building period or calculated period?
• Is accidental torsion checked and provisions applied?

10
 6/18/2018

Wind based on ASCE 7

• ENVELOPE PROCEDURE
• DIRECTIONAL PROCEDURE
• portions of this procedure are
generally used by software to generate
wind loads
• WIND TUNNEL PROCEDURE
• Versions
• 7-02
• 7-05
• 7-10 (major change)
• 7-16

Verify loads - Quick Facts

• ASCE 7-10
• pages dedicated to Wind
• 130
• pages used for most wind load generators
• Estimate 10-20, varies depending on software
• so when a software indicates ASCE 7-10 is implemented, be sure you know what
that means, what’s included, and perhaps more importantly, what’s excluded!

11
 6/18/2018

Seismic based on ASCE 7

• EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE
• TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
• RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
• Versions
• 7-02
• 7-05
• 7-10
• 7-16

Software options and examples

12
 6/18/2018

Software options and examples

• Auto exposure edges?
• Determined from defined deck/slab edges
• Allow Modifications?
• User defined exposure areas?
• Can user manually define wind exposure areas
and distribution?
• Combine with user defined loads?
• Parapets?

Verify loads - User defined load

options

• What do you do when the load

generator is close, but needs
supplemental loads to be added
• Can supplemental loads be
added to generated loads?

13
 6/18/2018

Auto exposure edges? User defined exposure Combine with user

Wind Parapets
Allow Modifications? areas defined loads?

RISA 3D yes | no yes

RSS (FRAME)
yes | yes yes
RAM Elements

ETABS yes | yes lateral walls yes yes

SCIA load panels yes yes

TEKLA Structural
wall panels yes yes
Designer

IES VisualAnalysis areas yes yes

Distributed “area” load for

Equivalent Lateral Force Semi-Rigid Diaphragm (SRD)
Seismic Load Eccentricities
Procedure and/or point load for
Rigid Diaphragm (RD)
manual “area” load for SRD
RISA 3D yes yes
or generated point load for RD
RSS (FRAME) generated “area” load for SRD
yes yes
RAM Elements or generated point load for RD
manual “area” load for SRD
ETABS yes yes
or generated point load for RD
manual “area” load for SRD
SCIA yes yes
or generated point load for RD
TEKLA Structural manual “area” load for SRD
yes yes
Designer or generated point load for RD
IES VisualAnalysis manual manual manual “area” load

14
 6/18/2018

Understanding Dynamic
Analysis

Types of Dynamic Loads

• Every structure is subject to dynamic loading
• Dynamic analysis can be used to find:
• Natural frequency
• Dynamic displacements
• Time history results
• Modal analysis

15
 6/18/2018

Terminology
• Mass is defined by:
• mass equals force divided by acceleration, m=f/a
• mass is also equal to its weight divided by gravity
• Stiffness of a body is a measure of the resistance offered by an elastic
body to deformation.
• Damping is the resistance to the motion of a vibrating body.

Ref. Anil K. Chopra: Dynamics of Structures, Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Second Ed.

Lateral Dynamic Analysis

How is Mass Determined?
• How to calculate
• Some programs store mass separate from building loads
• Some use one load case or combination as mass
• Members and plates
• Masses get lumped at nodes
• Split elements and plates to more evenly distribute
• Floors
• Mass gets lumped at a single location per floor for a rigid diaphragm
• Limits dof (simplifies the model)
• Additional applied mass on member or nodes
• Good idea for perimeter wall
• Dynamic analysis is sensitive to the discretization of you model (how many members, nodes, dof)

16
 6/18/2018

Natural Frequency
• Every system has a set of frequencies in which
it "wants" to vibrate when set in motion
• Based on the system’s mass and stiffness
characteristics.
• Shortest frequency = natural frequency
• Inverse of frequency = period of the system
• inverse of the natural frequency =
fundamental period

Multiple Degree of Freedom

Systems (Multi-story)

• Generally, the first mode of vibration is the one of primary interest.

• Usually has the largest contribution to the structure's motion
• Period of this mode is the longest
• Shortest natural frequency (inverse of period) and first eigenvector

Ref. Anil K. Chopra: Dynamics of Structures, Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Second Ed.

17
 6/18/2018

Natural Frequency for

Wind

• Longer fundamental periods are indicative of buildings that are more

susceptible to dynamic amplification effects
• Sustained wind gusts
• Result in higher design forces.

Natural Frequency for Seismic

• The closer the frequency of an earthquake is to the natural frequency of a

building, the more energy is introduced into the building structure
• Buildings with shorter fundamental periods attract higher seismic forces
• Code-based design spectrum exhibits higher accelerations at shorter
periods.

18
 6/18/2018

First Step in Dynamic Analysis

In order to investigate the magnitudes of:

• Wind
• Seismic
…the fundamental periods of the area affected
must first be determined

Period Determination from

“Properly Substantiated Analysis”
• ASCE allows a "properly substantiated analysis"
• Most programs quickly and easily perform an eigenvalue analysis
• periods can be significantly longer than from approximate equations:
• “non-structural” infill and cladding?
• stiffening effect of "gravity-only" elements
• Approximate equations are skewed to provide shorter periods

Ref. William P. Jacobs, V, P.E.: STRUCTURE Magazine (June 2008); Building Periods: Moving Forward (and Backward)

19
 6/18/2018

Seismic Period Determination from

“Properly Substantiated Analysis"
• FORCE - ASCE 7 limits the maximum building period for design loads
• Approximate building period, Ta, multiplied by up to 1.4 factor
• Cap is intended to prevent possible errors
• In other words, un-conservative building periods for seismic load determination
• Should make you question…
• IS the extra 40% (1.4 factor) JUSTIFIED?
• DRIFT, ASCE 7 removes the maximum altogether
• Use the building period resulting from analysis

Seismic Period Determination from

“Properly Substantiated Analysis"
• Most programs will quickly and easily perform an eigenvalue analysis
• Is that good enough?
• Will the building period be too long?
• Did you consider the stiffening effect of the non-structural infill
• Did you consider the stiffening effect of "gravity-only" columns, beams and
slabs
• Did you consider the gravity W36x150 with 10 rows of 1" dia bolts as more
than a pinned connection

20
 6/18/2018

implementation using commercial

building software
• TRUE mass
• not always the same as dead load
• many times we are conservative with dead loads (+)
• remember, more mass (+) leads to longer periods and less seismic load
• remember sustained live load and 20% of snow
• TRUE stiffness
• Member partial fixity?
• Wall cracking?
• Etc

implementation using commercial

building software
• wind load dynamic modeling
• longer periods yield higher loads
• seismic load dynamic modeling
• shorter periods yield higher loads

• different methods/models needed to be

conservative!

21
 6/18/2018

Same Dynamic Analysis Model?

Same Dynamic Analysis Model?

TABLE:
Same building - different dynamic Modal
Periods
results Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 Program 4

• different “participation” from Mode sec sec sec sec

Mode 1 4.26 4.305 2.76 3.33
columns/slabs Mode 2 2.652 2.87 1.87 2.5

• different crack factors assumed Mode 3 2.186 2.40 1.46 2.5

Mode 4 0.843 1.47 0.61 0.77
• one model had localized mode Mode 5 0.701 1.30 0.56 0.71
Mode 6 0.644 0.99 0.4 0.56

22
 6/18/2018

Program 1
Program 4
Same Dynamic Analysis Model?

Program 2
Program 3

How to Avoid
Potential
Problems
with Dynamic Analysis
and Loads

23
 6/18/2018

dynamics modeling tips

• Some compromise must be made in your finite element model
• in general, the mass in your model will be lumped at nodes (automatically in some programs)
• shear buildings, where the mass is considered lumped at the stories are much easier to
successfully model than other structures
• Distributed mass. It is often helpful to define a load combination just for your dynamic mass
case, separate from your “Dead Load” static
• dynamic mass load combination will often be modeled very differently
• You want to lump the mass at fewer points to help the solution converge faster, however you
have to be careful to still capture the essence of the dynamic behavior of the structure

Models that don’t work well

• Multiple separate frames
• be careful of semi-isolated areas
• hard to get required mass participation
• Models that have lateral support above the base
• Models that are poorly discretized
• too few dof – not a true representation, overly simplified (rigid diaphragms for models
that aren’t close enough to being truly rigid)
• too many dof – too complex of a model, hard to get mass participation with reasonable
amount of modes

24
 6/18/2018

Avoiding problems with Dynamic

Analysis
• Look closely at:
• deflected shape
• mode-shapes
• building story shear output for each analysis run
• Any undesirable behavior could easily be detected by these outputs
• Also investigate if boundary conditions such as foundation nodes have been properly
applied on the model
• Only when you are satisfied with the general behavior and response of your numerical
model, move to design of members

Avoiding problems with dynamic

analysis - localized modes
• Modes where only a small part of the model is vibrating and the rest of the model is not
• May not be obvious from looking at the numeric mode shape results
• can usually be spotted by animating the mode shape
• Make it difficult to get enough mass participation in the response spectra analysis
• local modes don’t usually have much mass associated with them
• solving for a substantial number of modes but getting very little or no mass participation
would indicate that the modes being found are localized modes
• Sometimes, localized modes are due to modeling errors (erroneous boundary conditions,
members not attached to plates correctly, etc.)

25
 6/18/2018

front view isometric view

26
 6/18/2018

Implementation using commercial

building software
• First and foremost
• Get the TRUE mass modeled
• not always the same as dead load
• many times we are conservative with dead loads (+)
• remember, more mass (+) leads to longer periods and less seismic load
• remember sustained live load (code requires this for storage) and 20% of snow when greater than 30psf
• Get the TRUE stiffness modeled
• ignoring partial fixity in joints (beam ends, column splices, column base plates, etc. etc.) for example may lead to
conservative positive moments for beam design, but also reduces stiffness and leads to less seismic load
• For modal analysis, do your best to consider the most likely damping percentages (remember elastic vs inelastic
response)

QA/QC for Loading

27
 6/18/2018

QA/QC
• Peer review of model is essential
• Loads in = Loads out
• Does resulting base shear = applied lateral load?
• Wind Load Code Check:
• If factored wind loads are applied per ASCE 7-10, confirm LRFD design is
applied

QA/QC
• Torsion considered for Wind and Seismic
• Columns, walls, plate elements
• Uplift
• Confirm % of DL and SDL assumed in uplift force determination
• Check for uplift effects to tension members, base plates, holddown / anchor
connections, and foundations
• Is P-delta considered?

28
 6/18/2018

Moving Away From Simplicity

• No longer need to run

individual load cases and
superimpose results…
….run load combinations

Verify analysis results

• Start with simple models to approximate results
• Simple micro models
• Simple macro models
• Work in complex elements to overall model
• Verify final model matches behavior of simple model
• Understand software capability/limitations of analysis

29
 6/18/2018

Estimate behavior before hitting

analyze

• Estimate load
• Determine Shear for group
• Determine corner up/down
reactions as estimate

Estimate behavior before hitting

analyze
• Simple to complex
• Lose the ability to do this when
we import complex models from
BIM models
• Counter intuitive behavior?
• Real or not real???

30
 6/18/2018

What happens at first floor?

• Can load really reverse in towers?

• created by rigid diaphragms
• More realistic with Semi-rigid
• still need to check ability to get load out
of wall groups, into diaphragm, then into
new walls at foundation

Estimate load distribution

3x 3x
3x
3x 2x
1x
1x

31
 6/18/2018

Before we take on this…

3x 3x
3x
3x
1x
1x

Work on understanding individual area

32
 6/18/2018

Utilize all elements

Sample Project Structural System
• 3 story structure • Semi-rigid diaphragms at Level 1
• Masonry stair and elevator shaft and 2
walls • Flexible diaphragm at roof
• Steel floor framing
and columns

Utilize all elements

Steel Lateral System
• Steel beams, roof joists, and columns
• 11 Moment Frames in the N-S direction

33
 6/18/2018

Utilize all elements

Utilizing Masonry Walls
Forgotten Lateral System
Masonry System

• Stairs: 8” masonry walls with #5@24”

o.c. vertical reinf

• Elevators: 12” walls with #5@24” o.c.

vertical reinforcement

• Capable of carrying all lateral load

without steel moment frames

Moving Away From Simplicity

• Previously with limited software, slower
computers, or no software and
computers, we simplified reality with
conservative “approximations”
• Large difference between all "lateral" and
"gravity/lateral" member modeling
• How can members be ignored from
lateral system?

34
 6/18/2018

Understand software
capability/limitations of analysis

• Beam, Column, and Wall Properties

• Diaphragm Properties
• Diaphragm connection to lateral support system

Beams and Columns

35
 6/18/2018

Beams and Columns

• Member properties - boundary conditions
• Strong axis - pinned or moment connected
• Maybe semi-rigid?
• Weak axis and torsion being checked?
• Concrete
• Does FEA consider cracked sections?

Beams and Columns

• Member properties - boundary conditions

• End zone
• Rigid end offsets
• Pinned, fixed or spring support?

36
 6/18/2018

Beams and Columns

• Member properties - type of finite element
• Wide concrete beam
• When should it be considered a plate instead of line element (4 node
instead of 2)?
• Large “deep column” or ‘short wall”
• Remember, “columns” are 1-D finite elements that connect to plates
at a single point

Beams and Columns

concrete cracked sections stiffness? compressible or fixed?

concrete
weak axis and cracked
strong axis sections
commonly fixed, stiffness?
do connections torsion fixed? is
and member check torsion being
for weak axis? designed?

37
 6/18/2018

Beams and Columns

rigid end zones, and offsets can make a

big difference - rigid link between the
end of the member and end node

Beams and
Columns

Software Examples

38
 6/18/2018

TEKLA Structural Designer

RAM Structural System -

Concrete Beam Crack Factor

39
 6/18/2018

SCIA Engineer
Member Property
Modifiers

Member End
Releases

40
 6/18/2018

Member End
Support

Walls

41
 6/18/2018

Walls
• Wall properties, boundary conditions
• Is there weak axis bending? torsional?
• Horizontal and vertical bending? both being checked?
• Does FEA consider cracked sections
• Wall node releases

Walls
• Wall modeling
• Masonry wall stiffness based on partial or full grout
• “True” long walls vs. short segments
• Gap or no gap
• Openings

42
 6/18/2018

Walls
compressible or fixed?

out-of-plane
plate torsion fixed?
connected? in-plane
concrete horizontal bending?
do connections cracked
and wall check for sections is torsion and
out of plane stiffness? horizontal bending
moment (vertical
being designed?
bending)?
out-of-plane concrete cracked sections
stiffness?

Interconnected Walls vs
Isolated Panels
• Boxed wall groups
(stair towers | elevator shafts)
• Have approximately
double the lateral load
stiffness/capacity over
individual walls

43
 6/18/2018

Walls

Software Examples

RISA 3D wall
properties

44
 6/18/2018

Scia Engineer
Stiffness
Factors 2D

TEKLA Structural Designer

45
 6/18/2018

RAM Structural System

Effective Stiffness for Modeling Reinforced Concrete Structures

By John-Michael Wong, Ph.D., S.E., Angie Sommer, S.E., Katy Briggs, S.E. and Cenk Ergin, P.E.
STRUCTURE MAGAZINE in Articles, Structural Analysis, January 2017

46
 6/18/2018

Mixing Materials
… in the same frame

Steel Frames Connected to

Perforated Masonry Shear Walls

47
 6/18/2018

Post-Tensioned Concrete
Frame with Masonry Walls

Multiple Material Lateral:

Wood - Masonry - Steel

48
 6/18/2018

Diaphragms

HALFTIME

More on Semi-Rigid
Diaphragm Boundary Conditions
• Membrane or plates?
• Membrane - load transfer through “axial/tension/compression” stiffness
in 2D element
• Plates - full axial/tension/compression stiffness in addition to element in-
plane bending
• Diaphragm cracked sections

49
 6/18/2018

in-plane concrete
cracked sections
stiffness?

out-of-plane
concrete cracked
sections stiffness?

Semi-Rigid
Diaphragm
Properties

Software Examples

50
 6/18/2018

Scia Engineer
Stiffness
Factors 2D

RAM Structural System

51
 6/18/2018

Load Transfer
• Load transfer from diaphragm to vertical element
• Is there flexibility in the connection?
• Partition wall or shear wall, does your model know the difference
• Can the connection handle the load into (or out of) vertical wall, frames,
etc?

Collectors in Diaphragms

• Rigid diaphragms can dump a infinite amount of load into a single node
(point) in the model?
• How can an engineer ensure load can get from diaphragm to lateral
frame?

52
 6/18/2018

Openings in Diaphragms
• Exterior wall groups with wall opening, how does lateral load get to outer
walls
• Rigid diaphragms have way of “sharing” load through open areas (btw,
not possible)
• Location and size of openings can have minimal or significant effect on
diaphragm

53
 6/18/2018

“Redistribution” of Force
• Classic example is podium slab or another example is any building with
basement level(s)
• Redistribution from:
• Rigid diaphragm: easy and often wrong
• Semi rigid: MUCH more realistic diaphragm

54
 6/18/2018

Verify loads - Load Distribution

• Flexible Diaphragm
• Semi-Rigid Diaphragm
• Rigid Diaphragm

• Something to ponder...
• Which would you rather have, software automatically determine forces on
a building, or software that can distribute the forces to lateral resisting
elements based on one of the appropriate diaphragm types?

Rigid
LOAD APPLICATION Flexible diaphragms Semi-Rigid diaphragms
diaphragms

NOT OK - analysis will be

Lumped lateral load Not sure this makes sense OK
flawed

Actual load applied

- wind at perimeter OK, actually, this should be a
Acceptable Unnecessary, but OK
- seismic at center requirement!
of mass

55
 6/18/2018

Rigid
Load Distribution Flexible diaphragms Semi-Rigid diaphragms
diaphragms

RISA 3D yes with manual plate elements yes

RAM Structural System

no,
(FRAME) with auto plate elements yes
in RSS “flexible means none”
RAM Elements

ETABS yes with manual plate elements yes

by modifying othotropic by modifying othotropic

SCIA with manual plate elements
properties properties

TEKLA with diaphragm braces yes

yes, areas or plates

IES VisualAnalysis with manual plate elements yes
membrane only

Stepped Diaphragms

• Is the step modeled?

• Is there a real ability to transfer forces across the step?
• Small step with a shared beam/girder/truss
• Large step: truss, bracing, wall element needed

56
 6/18/2018

Sloped Diaphragms
• How sloped is too sloped to be considered a rigid
diaphragm?

57
 6/18/2018

QA/QC for Member Results

QA/QC
• What are residual forces/stresses?
• Examples
• Torsional load in wide flange?
• Horizontal bending in walls?
• Axial forces in connections?
• Diaphragm forces in floors?

58
 6/18/2018

QA/QC
• Do you have a way to check for unaccounted for residual forces/stresses?
• Or do you have a means to make sure the magnitude of the load is below a
certain threshold to ignore?

QA/QC
Detailing
• Check load path from superstructure to soil
• Are drag struts modeled as detailed?
• Are transfer forces from steel frames to adjacent framing considered in connection design
and/or forces shown?
• How is shear transferred from base plates to foundations - anchors, shear lugs, etc.?

59
 6/18/2018

QA/QC
Detailing
• Base boundary conditions for drift & strength
• Confirm simulation to actual foundation stiffness - model bases as springs, pinned,
or fixed
• Expansion Joints
• Confirm model properly considers independent diaphragms at expansion joints
• Check drift of 2 independent structures at an expansion joint is compatible with
gap shown on drawings

QA/QC

VIEW THE DEFLECTED SHAPE - ANIMATE

60
 6/18/2018

QA/QC

• Check drift - inter-story and overall drifts

• Check the animated shapes as well
• tells a story of the buildings response

61
6/18/2018

62
 6/18/2018

RAM Frame

63
6/18/2018

64
 6/18/2018

Verify design checks

Never go from analysis to design check without validating results first

• Understand software capability/limitations of design checks

• Note: (obvious) not all programs run the same checks
• start with simple models to understand design checks
• Note: (obvious) reading the manual is imperative
• be sure design check is comparing the right analysis results against
member capabilities

65
 6/18/2018

seismic provisions
Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 Program 4 Program 5

separate mass separate mass combination of separate mass separate mass

calculation calculation modeled loads assignment assignment

fundamental period fundamental period fundamental period

approx fundamental period
calculation calculation calculation or
fundamental period calculation
or approx or approx approx

ELF ELF ELF

seismic load generation seismic load generation seismic load generation

checks based on frame checks based on frame checks based on frame checks based on frame
type type type type

composite steel beam and concrete slab

Program 3 Program 1 Program 2
simple or continuous composite
composite design composite design
design
uniform or segmented layout uniform or segmented layout uniform or segmented layout
customizable deck profile and customizable deck profile and
customizable deck profile and properties
properties properties
abs min/advisory min/max %
min/max % composite action min/max % composite action
composite action
automatic tributary width and customizable automatic tributary width and customizable automatic tributary width

deflection checks include long term

deflection checks deflection checks
effect of concrete
vibration checks in program, based on vibration checks in program, based on vibration checks export to FloorVibe,
AISC DG #11 AISC DG #11 based on AISC DG #11

66
 6/18/2018

Examples: Floor Vibration

• structural steel software review

• all these programs do floor vibration checks
• do they agree with your hand calcs
• what to do when things get more complicated

dynamic analysis for steel floor vibrations

simple software solution

67
 6/18/2018

dynamic analysis for steel floor

vibrations simple software solution

dynamic analysis for steel floor vibrations

68
 6/18/2018

dynamic analysis for steel floor vibrations

Floorvibe

can be used as a stand-alone program, or can

be used from RAM Steel

dynamic analysis for steel floor vibrations

RISA Floor

69
 6/18/2018

stability – comparison table

Program 3 Program 1 Program 2 Program 4

DA Method DA Method DA Method DA Method

P-delta P-delta P-delta P-delta

option for stiffness option for stiffness option for stiffness

option for stiffness reduction
reduction reduction reduction
calcs tb
tb=1 for all members tb=1 or custom value calcs tb
tb=1
uses notional load of uses notional load of automatically determines %
uses notional load of 0.3 %
0.2% or 0.3 % 0.2% or 0.3 % (generally 0.2%)

dynamic analysis loading

Program 1 Program 2 Program 4 Program 5

mass at nodes or rigid mass at nodes or rigid mass at nodes or rigid

mass at rigid diaphragms
diaphragms calculation diaphragms calculation diaphragms calculation

determine mode shapes determine mode shapes determine mode shapes determine mode shapes

response spectrum analysis response spectrum analysis response spectrum analysis response spectrum analysis

time history analysis time history analysis time history analysis

70
 6/18/2018

steel connections – comparison table

ETABS Steel
RAM Conn / RAM SDS/2 STI HSS CONNEX
LIMIT STATE / SOFTWARE DESCON RISA Conn LIMCON Connection VAConnect
Conn Standalone Engineering ONLINE
Design

Yes - follows AISC,

Skewed connections an skew must not be limited to
no no no yes no yes
option? no more than 15 15degrees
deg
Can adjust T/Beam
yes yes no yes yes n/a yes n/a
elevation?
Yes, but not in a
Sloped connections an
no col-beam-brace yes no yes yes no no
option?
conn

Develop your
checklist

Design features vary

between programs, know
what the differences are.

71
 6/18/2018

Software Expert - key to success

Software expert
• Teaches
• Tests
• Benchmarks
• QC reviews

What should you do?

• Develop a Software Expert program
immediately
• Software Expert is NOT:
• Is not just the most proficient "operator"
• Is not lacking experience
• Is not only defining capabilities
• also clearly understands limitations
• Probably is not only looking at one program

72
 6/18/2018

What should you do?

• Develop a Software Expert program immediately
• Software Expert is:
• Leading staff trainings
• Helping team maximize proficiency and
efficiency
• Clearly defining Do’s and Don’ts
• Part of team deciding best tool for project (before
project starts)
• Part of every project software QC

In Conclusion
• Get to know your software, develop Software Experts
• Get to know the code, and how it's been implemented in each software
you use
• Always know capabilities, and more importantly limitations
• Always have your loads in a software model reviewed by a peer
• Always, always check total load on model with hand calc
AND Always remember, software is a tool, you’re the engineer...

73
 6/18/2018

Who?
SR3

• Young engineers - you’re the one building FEMs

• Senior engineers - you’re the one checking FEMs
• Design firms - these models are your responsibility, even though no one
will ever likely “check your FEMs” even if they check your calc
• Remember….

“It is not your business to succeed,

but to do right.”
- C.S. Lewis

74
Slide 147

SR3 What recommendations do you

suggest, modeling courses?
Sam Rubenzer, 6/15/2018
 6/18/2018

Questions?
sam@FORSEconsulting.com
sam@FORSEconsulting.com
sam@FORSE consulting.com
sam@FORSEconsulting.com
sam@FORSEconsulting.com

75
 6/18/2018

SR4

questions?

sam@FORSEconsulting.com

76
Slide 151

SR4 COULD YOU PROVIDE A SHORT

EXAMPLE OF DRASTICALLY
DIFFERENT NUMERICAL
OUTPUTS AS A RESULT OF 2
DIFFERENT MODELING
SCENARIOS (CONNECTION OR
DIAPHRAGM DESIGN FOR
INSTANCE)? THIS WOULD HELP
ILLUSTRATE SOME OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT CHECKS TO MAKE
WHEN BUILDING COMPUTER
MODELS
Sam Rubenzer, 6/15/2018