RISA-2D

Rapid Interactive Structural Analysis - 2 Dimensional

Verification Problems

26212 Dimension Drive, Suite 200

Lake Forest, California 92630
(714) 951-5815
(714) 951-5848 (FAX)
WWW.RISATECH.COM

Table of Contents

IV) Verification
Verification Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification Problem 1 (Truss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification Problem 2 (Large Model Cantilever) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification Problem 3 (Thermal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification Problem 4 (Two Story Frame) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification Problem 5 (Large Frame) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification Problem 6 (Plates) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification Problem 7 (Dynamics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification Problem 8 (Dynamics and Response Spectrum Analysis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification Problem 9 (AISC Code Checks, ASD and LRFD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification Problem 10 (NDS Timber Code Checks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification Problem 11 (Tapered WF Analysis and ASD Code Checks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-6
1-8
1-10
1-12
1-14
1-16
1-28
1-34

Page i

Overview

Verification Overview
We at RISA Technologies maintain a library of dozens of test problems used
to validate the computational aspects of RISA-2D. In this section we present
a representative sample of these test problems for your review.
These test problems should not necessarily be used as design examples; in
some cases the input and assumptions we use in the test problems may not
match what a design engineer would do in a real world situation; the input
for these test problems was formulated to test RISA-2Ds performance, not
necessarily to show how certain structures should be modeled.
The RISA-2D solutions for each of these problems are compared to either
hand calculations or solutions from other well established programs. By
"well established" we mean programs that have been in general use for many
years, such as the Berkeley SAPIV program. This original SAPIV program is
still the basis for several commercial programs currently on the market (but
not RISA-2D).
The reasoning is if two or more independently developed programs that use
theoretically sound solution methods arrive at the same results for the same
problem, those results are correct. The likelihood that both programs will
give the same wrong answers is considered extremely remote.
If discrepancies occur between the RISA-2D and SAPIV results during
RISA-2D testing, we don't automatically assume SAPIV is correct.
Additional testing and hand calculations are used to verify which program, if
either, is correct. There have been instances where the SAPIV results have
proven to be erroneous!
The data for each of these verification problems is provided. The files are
VPROB1.R2D for problem 1, VPROB2.R2D for problem 2, etc. When you
install RISA-2D these datafiles are copied into the /RISA directory, so when
you go to the Files (Alt-F) screen, you will see them listed. If you want to run
any of these problems yourself, just read in the appropriate datafile and have
at it.

Page 1-1

Verification

Verification Problem 1
Description

This problem is a typical truss model. The members are pinned at both ends,
thus they behave as truss elements. This particular problem is presented in
the text Structural Analysis and Design, by Ketter, Lee and Prawel. It can
be found on page 171 as example 3.7. The text lists "Q" as the load
magnitude and "a" as the panel width. For this solution "Q" is taken as 10
MT and "a" is taken as 2 meters (continental metric units).
This problem provides a comparison of the stiffness method used in RISA2D with the joint equilibrium method used in the text. The joint equilibrium
method may be used to solve statically determinate structures only, while the
stiffness method can solve either determinate or indeterminate models.

Model Sketch

Validation
Method

Comparison

The axial force results calculated by RISA-2D are compared

with the axial force results presented in the text. In the text the results are
listed as multiples of "Q".

Axial Force Comparison

Member

RISA-2D

Text

1-2

39.13

39.13

8-9

-23.75

-23.75

3-9

5.59

5.59

4 - 10

11.18

11.18

As can be seen, the results match exactly. Note the text lists tension as
positive, compression as negative.

Page 1-2

Verification

Verification Problem 2
Description

This model is simply a cantilever with a vertical load applied at the end. The
cantilever is 999 feet in length, modeled using a series of 999 beams, each 1
ft in length. This problem tests the numerical accuracy of RISA-2D, and also
the program limits for number of joints. Any significant precision errors
would show up dramatically in a model like this.

Model Sketch

Validation
Method

The RISA-2D solution will be compared with the theoretical

displacement and rotation for a cantilever with a load at its end.
The equations for the displacement and rotation are:
>

= P * L^3 / (3 * E * I)
= P * L^2 / (2 * E * I)

For this model, the following values were used:

P
= -1 K
L
= 999 ( 11,988" )
E
= 100,000 Ksi
I
= 10,000 in^4
So the theoretical solution values are:
>

= -574.274 inches
= -.07186 radian

Comparison

Cantilever Solution
Value

RISA-2D

Theoretical

Displacement

-574.270

-574.274

Rotation

-.07186

-.07186

As can be seen, the results match almost exactly.

Page 1-3

Verification

Verification Problem 3
Description

This model is used to test the thermal force calculations in RISA-2D. The
model is a five member cantilever with a spring in the local x direction at the
free end. As the model is loaded thermally the spring causes some, but not
all, of the thermal expansion to be resisted.
Thermal loads cause structural behavior somewhat different from other
loads. For gravity loads, displacements induce stress, but for thermal
loading displacements cause stress to be relieved. For example, a free end
cantilever that undergoes a thermal loading would expand without resistance
and thus see no stress. Conversely, a fixed-fixed member that undergoes the
same thermal loading would see a stress increase with no displacements.
This model uses a spring to provide partial resistance to the thermal load.
This is realistic in that members generally would have only partial resistance
to thermal effects.

Model Sketch

Validation
Method

This model is validated by the use of hand calculations. The

theoretically exact solution may be calculated for comparison with the RISA2D result. Following are those calculations.
Property Values:
Area(A)
Young's Modulus(E)
Thermal Load (>T)
Coef Therm Exp.( )
Spring (K)
Length (L)

= 50 cm
= 70,000 MPa
= 300E
= .000012 cm/cm EC
= 500 KN/cm
= 10 Meters

The unrestrained thermal expansion (>free) is:

>free =

* >T * L

The general equation for the displacement of a member due to an axial load
(>axial) is:
Page 1-4

Verification
>axial = P * L / (A * E)
Well call the actual displacement of the member ">actual". Now, well say
"P" is the force in the spring, so:
P = >actual * K
So, using these formulations, the following is true:
>actual * K * L / (A * E) = >free - >actual
In other words, the "resisted expansion" of the member is the thermal
expansion that is not allowed to occur because of the spring and is equal to
>free - >actual. Think of it as the spring force pushing the member end back
this resisted expansion distance.
This leads to the equation for the actual displacement:
>actual =

* >T * L / ( 1 + (K*L)/(A*E) )

The force in the member is:

Force = (>free - >actual) * A * E / L
So for the given property values,
>actual
Force

Comparison

= 1.482 cm
= 741.2 KN

Thermal Results Comparison

Solution Method

Displacement

Force

Exact

1.482

741.2

RISA-2D

1.482

741.2

As can be seen, the results match exactly.

Page 1-5

Verification

Verification Problem 4
Description

This problem is a small but typical moment frame, with uniform distributed
dead and live loads and lateral nodal loads used to approximate seismic
effects. The columns are W14X61s and the beams are W18X50s.
This model was chosen because it represents the type of model typically
solved by hand. It can be solved relatively easily using moment distribution,
though a hand solution is time consuming. The hand solution gives shears
and moments for the members.

Model Sketch

Validation
Method

The validation of this solution is against a hand solution using the moment
distribution method. The effects of sideway are considered in the moment
distribution solution for the seismic lateral loading case. Note that there are
roundoff errors in the moment distribution solution and any small differences
can be attributed to this.

Comparison

The moment distribution calculations for the dead load analysis will be
listed, and a table comparing the dead load and seismic results is provided.
K for 1-2 is : 640/(17.25 *12)
K for 2-3 is : 640/(18 *12)
K for 3-4 is : 800/(25 *12)
K for 2-5 is : 800/(25 *12)
K for 5-4 is : 640/(18 *12)

Page 1-6

= 3.09
= 2.96
= 2.67
= 2.67
= 2.96

Verification
K for 6-5 is : 640/(17.25 *12)

= 3.09

Moment Distribution Calculations ( Dead Load Only)

1

1-2

2-1

2-3

2-5

3-2

3-4

4-3

4-5

5-2

5-4

5-6

6-5

0.

.35

.34

.31

.53

.47

.47

.53

.31

.34

.35

0.

0.

0.

8.65

0.

8.65 -8.65

0.

-8.65

0.

0.

0.

-3.03 -2.94 -2.68 -4.58 -4.07 4.07 4.58 2.68 2.94 3.03
-1.52

0.
.33

.17
.11

-2.29 1.34 -1.47 2.04 2.04 1.47 -1.34 2.29

.32

.29

0.

-.30 -.27

.27

.30

.29

-.32

-.33

-.15 -.15

.16

-.14 -.16

.15

.15

0.

.10

-.16 -.14

.14

-.1

-.1

-.11

.10

.14

.16

1.52
-.17

-1.35 -2.59 -4.96 7.55 -6.35 6.35 -6.35 6.35 -7.55 4.96 2.59 1.35

Comparison of Beam End Forces

Beam

Load

Force

RISA-2D Mom. Dist

Diff.

2-5

Dead
Dead
Dead
Dead

I, Shear
I, Moment
J, Shear
J, Moment

2.07
7.54
2.08
-7.54

2.08
7.55
2.08
-7.55

0.5%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%

3-4

Dead
Dead
Dead
Dead

I, Shear
I, Moment
J, Shear
J, Moment

2.07
6.32
2.08
-6.32

2.08
6.35
2.08
-6.35

0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%

5-4

Seismic
Seismic
Seismic
Seismic

I, Shear
I, Moment
J, Shear
J, Moment

8.14
63.33
-8.14
83.27

8.2
64.2
-8.2
82.5

0.7%
1.4%
0.7%
0.9%

2-5

Seismic
Seismic
Seismic
Seismic

I, Shear
I, Moment
J, Shear
J, Moment

-11.04
-138.05
11.04
-137.87

-11.1
-139.1
11.1
-139.1

0.5%
0.8%
0.5%
0.9%

Page 1-7

Verification

Verification Problem 5
Description

This problem is a relatively large frame with a high degree of load and
member complexity. All types of beam and node loads are included, the
beam loads being; point loads, point moments, partial length trapezoidal
loads, thermal loads, and self weight. All possible combinations of beam
axial, shear, and moment releases are included. Several sets of beam
properties are used. The loads are separated into four basic load cases and
combined into five load combinations.
This model is fairly complicated, so instead of attempting a model
description the user is advised to read in and look at the VPROB6.R2D file
for any details of this model.
This problem is primarily a test of the overall static analysis capabilities of
RISA-2D. This problem also tests that complex loadings, in concert with
complex model geometries, are handled properly.

Model Sketch

Validation
Method

The validation for this problem is a comparison against the same model
solved with an established and industry accepted program. For this model,
the results will be compared against the SAP IV program. The SAP IV
program is a widely accepted program based on the finite element method,
which was developed at the University of California at Berkeley. Selected
joint displacements and member end forces are the quantities that will be
compared.
Note that since RISA-2D displays left hand section forces, the signs of the Jend results must be reversed to give equivalent J-end member forces. I-end

Page 1-8

Verification
left hand section forces are the same as the I-end member end forces.
Comparison

As can be seen from the tabulated values below, the only differences are due
to the fact that RISA-2D rounds displacements to 3 places after the decimal.
Comparison of Nodal Displacements
Node No.

Load
Comb.

Dir.

RISA-2D
Results

SAP IV
Results

% Diff.

23.579

23.57944

0.0

16

.223

.22297

0.0

.826

.82625

0.0

16

.00267

.00267

0.0

-3.145

-3.14479

0.0

16.473

16.47341

0.0

12

.294

.29412

0.0

24

-.00647

-.00647

0.0

Comparison of Member End Forces

Memb.
Num.

Nodes

Load
Comb.

End,
Dir.

RISA-2D
Result

SAP IV
Result

% Diff.

11

13 - 21

J,x

-25.88

-25.88

0.0

J,y

18.00

18.00

0.0

J,

-54.00

-54.00

0.0

I,x

-.77

-.77

0.0

I,y

0.00

0.00

0.0

I,

-126.40

-126.40

0.0

I,x

.95

.95

0.0

I,y

1.88

1.88

0.0

I,

6.29

6.29

0.0

I,x

15.25

15.25

0.0

I,y

0.00

0.00

0.0

I,

0.00

0.00

0.0

I,x

-23.99

-23.99

0.0

I,y

-.88

-.88

0.0

14

15

16 - 24

8 - 16

12 - 19

10 - 18

Page 1-9

Verification
I,

Page 1-10

-20.20

-20.20

0.0

Verification

Verification Problem 6
Description

This problem is used to test the plate elements for in-plane membrane action.
The model is of two cantilever beams, the first modeled using a mesh of
finite elements and the second modeled using a rectangular beam. The load
is applied at the free end of the cantilever.
Note that more example problems for plate elements are given in the Plate
Data section of the General Reference.

Model Sketch

Validation
Method

This model is validated by comparing the deflection at the cantilevers free

end between the beam and plate model. The results will also be checked
against hand calculations. Following are the theoretical calculations to
obtain the tip deformation.
Property Values:
Beam Depth (D)
Beam Width (B)
Area (A)
Length (L)

= 60 in.
= 6 in.
= 360 in.2
= 30 ft. (360 in.)

Youngs Modulus (E)

Shear Modulus (G)

= 4000 Ksi
= 1539 Ksi

Membrane Load applied at the free end (Pm)

= 5000 Kips

Moment of Inertia for the Membrane Load (Im)

= 108,000 in.4

Page 1-11

Verification
Therefore, for the given property values:
The free end deflection due to the Membrane load is:
m

Comparison

'

3/ 3
3/
%
' LQ
(,
$*

Free End Deflection Comparison, Plates vs. Beam vs. Theory

Loading

Plates

Beam

Theory

Membrane

180.17 in.

183.90 in.

183.89 in.

As can be seen, the results match closely.

Page 1-12

Verification

Verification Problem 7
Description

This problem is designed to test the dynamic analysis capability of RISA-2D.

The first 10 frequencies for a simply supported beam, modeled as a series of
50 individual beam elements, are calculated.

Model Sketch

Validation
Method

The frequencies calculated by RISA-2D will be compared to

the "exact" frequencies presented by the text Formulas for Natural
Frequency and Mode Shape, by Dr. Robert D. Blevins (1979, Van
Nostrand Reinhold).
The equation presented by Blevins for the transverse frequencies is:
Fi

=[

/ 2 L ] * (EI/m)

The equation presented by Blevins for the longitudinal frequencies is:

Fi

=[

/ 2 L ] * (E/)

where:
m

= i*
= mass per unit length
= mass density
= Frequency Number (i=1,2,3,...)

For our model,

E
I
m

= 30,000 ksi
= 20,000 in4
= .10783 slugs/in
Page 1-13

Verification
= .00074885 slugs/in3

Comparison

Frequency Comparison

Freq No.

Blevins

RISA-2D

.64328

.643

2.573

2.573

5.7895

5.789

10.292

10.292

16.082

16.082

23.158

23.158

31.521

31.52

41.170

41.168

41.699*

41.692*

10

52.106

52.101

This is the first longitudinal frequency.

As can be seen, the results match very closely.

Page 1-14

Verification

Verification Problem 8
Description

This problem tests the dynamic analysis and response spectrum analysis
(RSA) features of RISA-2D. The model is a 10 story building. The
calculation of mode shapes and frequencies is followed by an RSA using the
1940 El Centra earthquake spectra. The SRSS combination method will be
used to combine the modes.
All the Y-direction degrees of freedom have been restrained using very stiff
springs. This will make the building vibrate laterally as an idealized shear
building.
The members use heavier sections at the bottom and lighter sections at the
top. The mass used for the dynamic analysis is only the self weight of the
members.

Model Sketch

Validation
Method

This problem will be validated against the ALGOR FEA program. The
model used for this problem is identical to the Algor verification problem
VE02004. The ALGOR program is primarily verified versus the original
SAP IV program developed at U.C. Berkeley.
The nodal displacements for selected nodes and the bending moments for
selected members will be compared. The frequency and modal participation
results are not shown here because if the nodal displacements match, the
intermediate results must also match.

Page 1-15

Verification
Comparison

The compared values are shown below. As can be seen, the results match
very closely.
Comparison of Nodal Displacements (in.)
Node

Algor

RISA-2D

% Diff.

.260

.260

0.0

.856

.856

0.0

11

1.411

1.411

0.0

15

1.924

1.924

0.0

21

2.393

2.392

0.04

Comparison of Bending Moments (K-ft)

Page 1-16

Member

Algor

RISA-2D

% Diff.

159.42

159.27

0.09

84.08

84.10

0.02

13

64.74

64.72

0.03

19

46.06

45.96

0.22

25

19.62

19.54

0.41

Verification

Verification Problem 9
Description

This verification model is a 2 bay, 2 story frame. The model is comprised of

WF, WT, Channel, Pipe, Single Angle, Double Angle and Structural Tube
members.
This problem is used to verify the stress and steel code check calculations in
RISA-2D. Both ASD and LRFD codes will be checked.

Model Sketch

Validation
Method

Following are the hand calculations for various members for various
load combinations. The steel codes used are the AISC ASD 9th edition, and
AISC LRFD 2nd edition. At least one member of each type is validated.
As part of the validation, the member stresses also are calculated. The forces
for each member come from the RISA-2D analysis. The "1.333" factor is the
result of the Wind/Seismic increase in allowable stresses activated for Load
Combination 3. This increase applies to the ASD code checks only.

Page 1-17

Verification
ASD

Following are the ASD hand calcs:

Member 2, Load Comb 1

Shape is W8X24
A = 7.08
I = 82.8, S = 20.88
ry = 1.61, rz = 3.42
L = 10 (120")
Stress Calculations:
fa = 7.05/7.08 = 1.0 Ksi
fb = 6.67(12)/20.88 = 3.83 Ksi
compact section
K_in = K_out = 1.0, No sidesway
(K*L/ry)out = 149.1 , (K*L/rz)in = 35.1, slender
Fa = 6.7 Ksi ( Eq. E2-2 )
Lcomp = Lb = 20
Lc = 6.85 , ( Lb > Lc )
Fb = 16.39 Ksi ( Eq. F1-8 )
Cm = .57
Fez = 121.2
Eqn H1-1 : .282
Eqn H1-2 : .280
Eqn H1-3 : .382 (so dont use)

Member 7, Load Comb 1

Shape is an 8 Diameter Pipe, Standard Weight
A = 8.4
I = 72.5, S = 16.8
r = 2.94
L = 10' (120")
Stress Calculations:
fa =. 71/8.4 = .08 Ksi
fb = 11.09(12)/16.8 = 7.92 Ksi
compact section
K_in = K_out = 1.0, No sidesway

Page 1-18

Verification
(K*L/r) = 40.82 nonslender
Fa = 19.152 Ksi (Table 3, p. 5-119, Cc = 126.1)
Fb = 23.76 Ksi ( Eq. F3-1 )
Cm = .85
Fez = 89.62
Eqn H1-1 : .288
Eqn H1-2 : .337
Eqn H1-3 : .338 (so dont use)

Member 6, Load Comb 1

Shape is C10x30
A = 8.82
I = 103, S = 20.6
ry = .669, rz = 3.42
d/Af = 7.55
L = 10 (120")
Stress Calculations:
fa = 0.0 Ksi
fb = 8.94(12)/20.6 = 5.21 Ksi
compact section
Lcomp = Lb = 10
Lc = 3.2 , ( Lb > Lc )
Fb = 6.62 Ksi ( Eq. F1-8 )
Cm = .85
Fez = 121.2
Eqn H1-1 : .669
Eqn H1-2 : .787
Eqn H1-3 : .787

Member 4, Load Comb 3

Shape is a Tube 6X6X3/8
Note that Fy for tube steel is 44 Ksi.
A = 8.08
I = 41.6, S = 13.9

Page 1-19

Verification
ry = 2.27, rz = 2.27
L = 10 (120")
Stress Calculations:
fa = 10.65/8.08 = 1.32 Ksi
fb = 23.22(12)/13.9 = 20.05 Ksi
compact section
Lb_in = 10, Lb_out = 20
K_in = K_out = 1.0, No sidesway
(K*L/ry)out = 105.73 , (K*L/rz)in = 52.86, nonslender
Fa = 13.068(1.333) = 17.42 Ksi (Table 3, p. 5-119, Cc = 114.06)
Fb = .66Fy = 29.04(1.333) = 38.71 Ksi ( Eq. F3-1 )
Cm = .30
Fez = 53.44
Eqn H1-1 : .235
Eqn H1-2 : .555
Eqn H1-3 : .594 (so dont use)

Member 8, Load Comb 3

Shape is WT4X9
A = 2.63
ry = 1.23, rz = 1.14
L = 14.14 (169.7")
Stress Calculations:
fa = 13.68/2.63 = 5.2 Ksi
compact section
K_in = K_out = 1.0, No sidesway
(K*L/rz)in = 148.84, slender
Fa = 6.74(1.333) = 8.98 Ksi ( Eq. E2-2 )
Eqn H1-1 : .579
Eqn H1-2 : .181
Eqn H1-3 : skip by inspection (same as H1-1)

Member 9, Load Comb 3

Shape is LL4x4x1/4 thick X 3/8 spacing

Page 1-20

Verification
A = 3.88
ry = 1.79, rz = 1.25
L = 14.14 (169.7")
Stress Calculations:
fa = 13.65/3.88 = -3.52 Ksi (Tension)
compact section
Ft = .6Fy(1.333) = 28.79 Ksi
Eqn H2-1 : .122

Member 10, Load Comb 1

Shape is L5x5x7/16
A = 4.18
rz-z = .986 ( This is the radius of gyration about the weakest axis )
L = 10' (120")
Stress Calculations:
fa = 3.79/4.18 = .907 Ksi
compact section
K_in = K_out = 1.0, No sidesway
(K*L/rz) = 121.7, nonslender
Fa = 10.04 Ksi (Table 3, p. 5-119, Cc = 126.1)
UC : .090
Note that unity check for single angles is based upon the axial load only and
Euler buckling is considered about the weakest (z-z) axis.

Comparison

ASD Unity Check Comparisons

Member

L.C.

RISA-2D

Hand Calc

.283

.282
Page 1-21

Verification

ASD Unity Check Comparisons

Member

L.C.

RISA-2D

Hand Calc

.337

.337

.787

.787

.556

.555

.581

.579

.122

.122

10

.090

.090

As can be seen, the results match very closely. The hand calculations used
tables 3 and 8 to calculate Fa and Fe, and usually only carried 2 places to the
right of the decimal. This and other roundoff differences cause any slight
discrepancies.
No examples of using Appendix B were shown, however the program will
include these provisions if a member is non-compact or slender. ( Note that
several of the members were declared slender based on their Kl/r ratio
being greater than Cc. This slender is different than the section
compactness criteria )
For the above members in several instances, equation H1-3 produced a larger
unity check than H1-1 or H1-2 and this value was NOT used. This is
because H1-3 is allowed in lieu of H1-1, or H1-2. Since H1-1 and H1-2 are
the more accurate expressions for the combined stresses, a lower unity check
from H1-1 or H1-2 can be used in place of H1-3.

LRFD
Page 1-22

Following are the LRFD hand calcs:

Verification

Member 2, Load Comb 5

Shape is W8X24
A = 7.08
I = 82.8, S = 20.88
Z = 23.2
ry = 1.61, rz = 3.42
L = 10 (120")
Strength Calculations:
Pu = 9.87 Kips
Mu = 9.3 ft-Kips
compact section
K_in = K_out = 1.0, No sidesway
(K*L/ry)out = 149.1
c = 1.672 > 1.5
Fcr = 11.29 Ksi ( Eqn. E2-3 )
Pn = Ag*Fcr = 79.94 Kips
Lcomp = Lb = 20
Lp = 6.71 , ( Lb > Lp )
Lr = 24.4 , (Lb < Lr )
Mp = 69.6 ft-Kips
Mr = 45.2 ft-Kips
Mn = 51.3 ft-Kips
b

= .90,

= .85

Eqn H1-1b : .274 (compression)

Member 7, Load Comb 1

Shape is an 8 Diameter Pipe, Standard Weight
A = 8.4
I = 72.5, S = 16.8
Z = 22.2
r = 2.94
L = 10' (120")
Strength Calculations:

Page 1-23

Verification
Pu = 1.0 Kips
Mu = 15.53 ft-Kips
compact section
K_in = K_out = 1.0, No sidesway
(K*L/r) = 40.82
c = .458 < 1.5
Fcr = 32.98 Ksi

( Eqn. E2-2 )

Pn = Ag*Fcr = 277.0 Kips

Mn = Mp = 66.6 ft-Kips
b

= .90,

= .85

Eqn H1-1b : .261 (compression)

Member 6, Load Comb 1

Shape is C10x30
A = 8.82
Iz = 103, Sz = 20.6
Iy = 3.94
Z = 26.6
ry = .669, rz = 3.42
d/Af = 7.55
J = 1.23
Cw = 79.3
X1 = 6401
X2 = 1.8 x 10-4
L = 10 (120")
Strength Calculations:
Pu = 0.0 Kips
Mu = 12.52 ft-Kips
compact section
Lcomp = Lb = 20
Lp = 3.2 , ( Lb > Lp )
Lr = 19.7 , (Lb > Lr )
Mn = Mcr = 43.89 ft-Kips
b

= .90,

= .85

Eqn H1-1b : .317 (compression)

Page 1-24

Verification

Member 4, Load Comb 3

Shape is a Tube 6X6X3/8
Note that Fy for tube steel is 44 Ksi.
A = 8.08
I = 41.6, S = 13.9
Z = 16.8
ry = 2.27, rz = 2.27
L = 10' (120")
Strength Calculations:
Pu = 11.14 Kips
Mu = 28.06 ft-Kips
compact section
Lb_in = 10', Lb_out = 20'
K_in = K_out = 1.0, No sidesway
(K*L/ry)out = 105.73 , (K*L/rz)in = 52.86
c = 1.311 < 1.5
Fcr = 21.43 Ksi ( Eqn. E2-2 )
Pn = Ag*Fcr = 173.13 Kips
Mn = Mp = 61.6 ft-Kips
b

= .90,

= .85

Eqn H1-1b : .544 (compression)

Member 8, Load Comb 3

Shape is WT4X9
A = 2.63
ry = 1.23, rz = 1.14
L = 14.14' (169.7")
Strength Calculations:
Pu = 12.65 Kips
Mu = 0.0 ft-Kips
compact section

Page 1-25

Verification
K_in = K_out = 1.0, No sidesway
(K*L/rz)in = 148.84
c = 1.669 > 1.5
Fcr = 11.34 Ksi ( Eqn. E2-3 )
Pn = Ag*Fcr = 29.82 Kips
b

= .90,

= .85

Eqn H1-1a : .696 (compression)

Member 9, Load Comb 3

Shape is LL4x4x1/4 thick X 3/8 spacing
A = 3.88
ry = 1.79, rz = 1.25
L = 14.14' (169.7")
Strength Calculations:
Pu = -17.94 Kips (Tension)
Mu = 0.0 ft-Kips
compact section
Pn = Fy*Ag = 139.7 Kips (Eqn. D1-1)
t

= .90

Eqn H1-1b : .071 (tension)

Member 10, Load Comb 1

Shape is L5x5x7/16
A = 4.18
rz-z = .986 ( This is the radius of gyration about the weakest axis )
L = 10' (120")
Strength Calculations:
Pu = 6.18 Kips
Mu = 0.0 ft-Kips
compact section

Page 1-26

Verification
K_in = K_out = 1.0, No sidesway
(K*L/rz) = 121.7
c = 1.365 < 1.5
Fcr = 16.51 Ksi ( Eqn. E2-2 )
Pn = Ag*Fcr = 69.0 Kips
UC : .105
Note that unity check for single angles is based upon the axial load only and
Euler buckling is considered about the weakest (z-z) axis.

Comparison

LRFD Unity Check Comparisons

Member

L.C.

Hand Calc

RISA-2D

.274

.275

.261

.261

Page 1-27

Verification

LRFD Unity Check Comparisons

Member

L.C.

Hand Calc

RISA-2D

.317

.318

.544

.544

.696

.699

.071

.071

10

.105

.105

As can be seen, the results match very closely. The hand calculations usually
only carried 2 places to the right of the decimal. This and other roundoff
differences cause any slight discrepancies.
No examples of using Appendix B were shown, however the program will
include these provisions if a member is non-compact or slender.
Note that all load combinations used for the LRFD problems included a PDelta analysis, which is required to satisfy the requirements of Chapter C.
See the P-Delta Analysis section of the General Reference for more
information on this.

Page 1-28

Verification

Verification Problem 10
Description

This problem tests the NDS Timber Code checking. The model is a 2 bay
portal frame, with one bay braced. The model is loaded with combinations
of Dead Load, Live Load, and Lateral (Wind) Load. A different CD (Load
Duration) factor is used for each combination.

Model Sketch

Validation
Method

Following are the hand calculations for various members for various
load combinations. All code check calculations and wood properties are
from the 1991 NDS and 1991 NDS Supplement. Several different situations
commonly encountered in timber design are shown here, such as columns,
beams, and combined beam/column members.
The member stresses ( axial, bending, and shear ) will also be calculated as
part of the verification.
Only NDS adjustment factors that are non-unity will be shown in the
calculations.

Member 1, Load Comb 3 (DL + LL + Wind)

NDS Wood Shape is DFLARN1D_6X8
This is a Douglas Fir Larch, Dense No. 1, Post & Timber. Design
Properties from Table 4D of the NDS Supplement : (All values in Psi)
Fb = 1400

Ft = 950

Fv = 85

Fc = 1200

E = 1,700,000

Page 1-29

Verification
Section Properties
b=5.5, d=7.5
A = 41.25 in2, S = 51.6 in3
Stress Calculations:
ft = 3980 Lbs / 41.25 in2 = 96.5 psi
fb = 2.4 kip-ft (12)(1000)/ 51.6 in 3 = 558.6 psi
fv = 1.5 * (1200 Lbs) / 41.25 in2 = 43.6 psi
Effective Lengths
K_in = K_out = 1.0, no sidesway
Lb_in = Le1 = 96 ; Lb_out = :Le2 = 48
Lu = 48, Lu/d = 6.4; Le_bend = 2.06(Lu) = 98.88
Le1/d = 12.8
Le2/b = 8.72
Applicable NDS Adjustment Factors
Fb'
Ft'
Fv'
Fc'
E'

CD = 1.6
CD = 1.6
CD = 1.6
CD = 1.6;

CM = 0.91

Ft' = 950(1.6) = 1520 psi

Fb* = 1400(1.6) = 2240 psi
Eqn 3.9-1 : .313
Also Check Shear
Fv' = 85(1.6) = 136 psi
Shear check = .321

Member 2, Load Comb 2 (DL + LL)

NDS Wood Shape is HEMFRSEL_R6
This is a Hem Fir, Select Structural, Post & Timber Round shape. Design
Properties from Table 4D of the NDS Supplement : (All values in Psi)
Fb = 1200

Ft =800

Fv = 70

Fc = 975

Section Properties
diameter = 6, Actual A = 28.27 in2 , S_actual = 21.21in3
Equivalent square member properties
d_equiv = 5.32, I_equiv = 66.75 in4
Stress Calculations:

Page 1-30

E = 1,300,000

Verification
fc = 5480 Lbs / 28.27 in2 = 193.8 psi
Effective Lengths
K_in = K_out = 1.0, no sidesway
Lb_in = Le1 = 96 ; Lb_out = :Le2 = 48
Le1/d = 18.04 Le2/b = 9.02
Fce = 1197.7 psi ( Kce = .3, c = 0.85 )
Fc* = 975 psi
Applicable NDS Adjustment Factors
Fb'
Ft'
Fv'
Fc'
E'

Cf = 1.18

Cp = .789

Fc' = 950(0.789) = 768.9 psi

Eqn 3.9-3 : .064

Member 3, Load Comb 3 (DL + LL + Wind)

NDS Wood Shape is YLPOPNO1_2X6
This is a Yellow Poplar, No. 1, Dimension Lumber. Design Properties from
Table 4A of the NDS Supplement : (All values in Psi)
Fb = 725

Ft = 425

Fv = 75

Fc = 725

E = 1,400,000

Section Properties
b = 1.5, d = 5.5
A = 8.25 in2, S = 2.06 in3
Stress Calculations:
fc = 2110 Lbs / 8.25 in2 = 255.8 psi
fb = 0.75 kip-ft (12)(1000)/ 2.06 in3 = 4363.6 psi
fv = 1.5 * (375 Lbs) / 8.25 in2 = 68.2 psi
Effective Lengths
K_in = K_out = 1.0, no sidesway
Lb_in = Le1 = 24 ; Lb_out = :Le2 = 24
Le1/d = 4.36
Le2/b = 16.0
Note : CL is 1.0 since d < b ( weak axis bending )
Fce1 = 22094 psi ( Kce = .3 )
Fce2 = 1640.6 psi (Kce = .3 )
Fc* = 1276 psi

Page 1-31

Verification
c = 0.80
Applicable NDS Adjustment Factors
Fb
Ft
Fv
Fc
E

CD = 1.6
CD = 1.6
CD = 1.6
CD = 1.6;

CF = 1.3
CF = 1.3

Cfu = 1.15

CF = 1.1

Cp = .770

Fc = 725(1.6)(1.1) (.770) = 982.5 psi

Fb2 = 725(1.6)(1.3)(1.15) = 1734.2 psi
Eqn 3.9-3 : 3.048
Also Check Shear
Fv = 75(1.6) = 120 psi
Shear check = .568

Member 5, Load Comb 1 (DL Only)

NDS Wood Shape is DFLANNO2_2X14
This is a Douglas Fir Larch (North), No. 2, Dimension Lumber. Design
Properties from Table 4A of the NDS Supplement : (All values in Psi)
Fb = 825

Ft =500

Fv = 95

Fc = 1350

E = 1,600,000

Section Properties
b = 1.5, d = 13.25
A = 19.88 in2, S = 43.89 in3
Stress Calculations:
fb = 5.82 kip-ft (12)(1000)/ 43.89 in 3 = 1591.3 psi
fv = 1.5 * (3030 Lbs) / 19.88 in2 = 228.6 psi
Effective Lengths
K_in = K_out = 1.0, no sidesway
Le_bend = 60
RB = 18.8
Fbe = 1982.8 psi
Fb* = 768.5 psi
Applicable NDS Adjustment Factors
Fb'
Ft'

Page 1-32

CD = 0.9
CD = 0.9

CF = 0.9
CF = 0.9

CL = 0.971

Cr = 1.15

Verification
Fv
Fc
E

CD = 0.9
CD = 0.9;

CF = 0.9

Fb = 825(0.9)(0.9)(0.971)(1.115) = 746.2 psi

Eqn 3.9-3 : 2.132
Also Check Shear
Fv = 95(.9) = 85.8 psi
Shear check = 2.674

Member 6, Load Comb 3 (DL + LL + Wind)

NDS Wood Shape is SOPINCON_4X4
This is a Southern Pine, Construction Grade, Dimension Lumber. Design
Properties from Table 4B of the NDS Supplement : (All values in Psi)
Fb = 1100

Ft = 625

Fv = 100

Fc = 1800

E = 1,500,000

Section Properties
b=3.5, d=3.5
A = 12.25 in2
Stress Calculations:
fc = 1377 Lbs / 12.25 in2 = 112.4 psi
Effective Lengths
K_in = K_out = 1.0, no sidesway
Lb_in = Le1 = Lb_out = Le2 = 153.7
Le1/d = Le2/b = 43.92
Fce = 233.3 psi ( Kce = .3)
Fc* = 2880 psi
Applicable NDS Adjustment Factors
Fb'
Ft'
Fv'
Fc'
E'

CD = 1.6
CD = 1.6
CD = 1.6
CD = 1.6;

Cp = .080

Fc' = 1800(1.6)(.08) = 230.4 psi

Eqn 3.9-3 : .238

Page 1-33

Verification

Comparison

NDS Timber Unity Check Comparisons

Member

L.C.

RISA-2D

Hand Calc

.313

.313

.064

.064

3.048

3.048

2.131

2.132

.240

.238

As can be seen, the results match very closely. Numerical roundoff is the
cause of any slight differences.

Page 1-34

Verification

Verification Problem 11
Description

This problem is used to test the tapered WF sections. A typical single bay
with a sloped roof will be analyzed using tapered WF sections for the
columns and beams. Loading will consist of vertical member projected
loads, lateral member distributed loads, and member point loads. Gravity self
weight will also be applied.

Model Sketch

Validation
Method

The frame analyzed with the tapered WF sections will be compared to a

similar frame, which is modeled with 14 piecewise prismatic sections for
each tapered WF member in the original frame. Since each tapered WF
member is modeled internally as a 14 member piecewise prismatic
member, the results should match very closely. Selected joint deflections,
reactions, and member section forces will be compared. The ASD code
checks on the tapered WF sections will be compared to hand calculations
using the ASD 9th edition steel code.

Comparison

Comparison of Joint Deflections

Tapered WF Section

Equivalent "piecewise" sections

Node

Direction

Deflection

Node

Direction

Deflection

-0.877

20

-0.877

-3.002

21

-3.002

4
X
0.290
49
X
0.290
The joint deflections were checked at the top left corner, peak, and top right
corner respectively. The results match exactly.
Page 1-35

Verification

Comparison of Base Reactions

Tapered WF Section

Equivalent "piecewise" sections

Node

MZ

Node

MZ

5.66

18.53

5.66

18.53

-10.86

17.09

41.75

35

-10.86

17.09

41.75

The reactions were checked at the two base nodes. A moment only appears
on one side because the other side had a moment release at the bottom of the
column. As can be seen, the results match exactly.

Comparison of Member Section Forces

Tapered WF Section

Equivalent "piecewise" sections

Member Section Local

Value
Loc. Direction

Member Section Local

Value
Loc. Direction

Mz

108.63

18

Mz

108.63

18.53

18.53

15.92

32

15.92

Mz

-108.63

32

Mz

-108.63

Mz

30.97

19

Mz

30.97

Mz

-30.97

47

Mz

-30.97

Mz

99.78

60

Mz

99.78

-14.50

60

-14.50

Mz

-99.78

46

Mz

-99.78

17.09

33

17.09

The section forces were checked at the base of the columns, at the corner
joints, and at the peak. As can be seen, the results match exactly.
The properties of the Tapered WF section used for this analysis are shown
below:

Tapered WF Properties
Page 1-36

Index

Total Depth
Web Thickness
Flange Width
Flange Thickness
Area
Iyy
Izz
rT

Taper Start
7
0.25
6
0.375
6.062
13.51
54.52
1.492

Taper End
14
0.25
6
0.375
7.812
13.52
257.36
1.315

The ASD code check for member 2 follows.

By inspection of the member stresses, design of the J end will control. The J
end is the large end of the tapered member.
Stress Calculations: ( All stress calcs done at the large end of the member )
fa = 13.238 kips / 7.812 = 1.695 Ksi (Compression)
fbz = 108.63 kip-ft (12)(14/2)/257.36 = 35.46 Ksi
compact section
sidesway for z-z axis only
L = 20.4' (244.8)
Lbyy = 12, Lbzz = 244.8
Lcomp = 12
Ky = Kz = 1.0 Note Kz will taken as 1.0 for simplicity, however it can calculated
via the figures in the Appendix F Commentary in the ASD 9th
edition, pg. 5-191.
Cc = 126.1
Ky*Lbyy/roy = 8.04 roy = radius of gyration at the small end = sqrt ( Iyy / A )
Kz*Lbzz/roz = 81.63 roz = radius of gyration at the small end = sqrt ( Izz / A )
Fa = 15.17 Ksi (Eqn. A-F7-2)
Eqns F1-1, F1-6, F1-7, and F1-8 were checked, however only A-F7-4 will be
shown. This equation usually governs the design of tapered members.
B is taken as 1.0 for simplicity, however this is to be determined from section
AF7.4. hs = 1.1405; hw = 1.011; Fs = 281.83; Fw = 2571.1
Fbz = 23.94 > .6*Fy; Fbz = 21.6 Ksi

( Eqn A-F7-4)

Eqn A-F7-14 : .1.753

The unity check obtained from RISA-2D is also 1.753, so the results match
exactly.

Page 1-37