Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Verification Examples
Fespa IS
Verification Examples
Version 2.4
Athens, July 2014
2 Fespa IS
Contents
1 Static Analysis Examples ................................................ 8
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
1
Static Analysis Examples
Fx=30
N22(0)
Fz=-60
1.1.4 References
[1] CS Krishnamoorthy, Finite Element Analysis, Theory and Programming,
Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, 1987
11 Fespa 10
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
1.3.4 References
[1] K. Hirschfeld, Baustatik, Erster Teil S. 1-768, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg New York, 1969.
16 Fespa IS
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 1-11: 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
Member/Node FESPA Sap2000
%
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
Software Verification Manual 19
Figure 1-5: Plan view of the space frame with L-shaped columns.
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:
Software Verification Manual 21
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
1.5.4 References
[1] Beton-Kalender, Teil I, Verlag Von Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin-
Munchen, 1982.
22 Fespa IS
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
1.6.4 References
[1] Glyn Jones, Analysis of Beams on Elastic Foundations using finite
difference theory. Thomas Telford, 1997.
24 Fespa IS
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
1.7.4 References
[1] SAP2000, Version 15.0, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley,
California.
Software Verification Manual 27
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.
Also, torsional radii of gyration which are identical for every floor level are set
in comparison in the following table:
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).
[2] T. Makarios, K. Anastasiadis, Real and Fictitious Elastic Axes of Multi-
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
Software Verification Manual 31
2
Modal Analysis Examples
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.
Software Verification Manual 33
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.
2.2.4 References
[1] SAP2000, Version 15.0, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley,
California.
Software Verification Manual 35
3
Dynamic Analysis Examples
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
3.2.4 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.
Software Verification Manual 41
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 3-7: 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.
Software Verification Manual 45
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.
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
Figure 4-2: Cross section strain compatibility and internal forces equilibrium.
In Indian Standards (IS 456:2000) the calculations proceed as follows:
Distance from the point considered to the surface of the nearest longitudinal bar
(Figure 4-3): acr = 121.28 mm
{
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
Strain due to stiffening effect of concrete between cracks for crack widths of 0.2
mm (IS 456:2000, ANNEX F):
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
=
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.
Software Verification Manual 51
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
4.2.5 References
[1] Hans Schiever, Berechnung von Platten, mit dem Einspanngrad-
Verfahren, 3. Auflage, Werner-Verlag 1979.
Software Verification Manual 55
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)
Distributed load of beam
21.92 21.92 0
B2.1 (KN/m)
Distributed load of beams
6.63 6.63 0
B1.2, B3.2 (KN/m)
Distributed load of beam
7.20 7.20 0
B5.1 (KN/m)
4.3.4 References
[1] IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, Indian Standard, plain and reinforced concrete-code
of practice
Software Verification Manual 59
Difference
Fespa IS
%
Design applied moment
150.0 150.0 0
MEd (KNm)
Tension calculated
9.30 9.36 -0.64
reinforcement AS1 (cm2)
Provided tension
418 418 -
reinforcement
Table 4-6: Flexural design comparison with IS 456:2000
Asw
=
(
Vu cd b d ) <0, the minimum shear reinforcement is applied
s 0.87 f y d
Asw 0.4 b A
= = 3.32 cm2/m > sw = 0.02 cm2/m
s min 0.87 f y s
62 Fespa IS
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
[1] IS 456:2000, Indian Standard, plain and reinforced concrete-code of
practice.
[2] Safe Verification manual, CSI Computers and Structures Version 12,
December 2010.
Software Verification Manual 63
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.
s1 = 0.00266
0.0035 ( x ys ,i )
s ,i = s 2 =
0.00266
x =
s3 0
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:
Software Verification Manual 65
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
Difference
Fespa IS
%
Design applied shear VEd
75.0 75.0 0
(KN)
Nominal shear stress v
0.379 0.379 0
(MPa)
Design shear strength of
0.435 0.435 0
concrete cd (MPa)
Provided shear
28/22 28/22 -
reinforcement
Table 4-9: Shear design comparison with IS 456:2000
4.5.5 References
[1] IS 456:2000, Indian Standard, plain and reinforced concrete-code of
practice.
68 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
%
2
L b
M u x x 1 + max =
= Ly 222.85 KNm
2 6 3
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
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)
Design shear strength of
0.307 0.307 0
concrete c (MPa)
Table 4-12: Shear design comparison with IS 456:2000
1.50DL+1.50IL
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
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
[1] IS 456:2000, Indian Standard, plain and reinforced concrete-code of
practice.
[2] Drken/Dehne, Grundbau in Beispielen Teil 2, Werner-Verlag 1995,
Dsseldorf, Germany
Software Verification Manual 75
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
u zy ( yi ) u yz ( yi )
P0 x p =
= ,z p
yy ( yi ) yy ( yi )
Software Verification Manual 77
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.
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
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
u II ( y 0 )
I =
III , I ( y 0 )
u I ( y0 )
II =
III , II ( y 0 )
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
[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).
[2] T. Makarios, K. Anastasiadis, Real and Fictitious Elastic Axes of Multi-
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
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:
N max = + N x2 + N y2 + N z2
Software Verification Manual 83
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
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
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.
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