FEM-Design 14 REPORT

Updating FEM-design was necessary because the previous version had a problem in defining creep
coefficient.

1) CREEP COEFFICIENT
The software allowed you to define only one creep coefficient that was used both in SLS load cases
and in ULS load cases, even if they have to be used in two different calculations.

FEM 13 – window FEM 14 - window

With the new version it is possible to introduce two different values for creep coefficient, one for SLS
load cases and one for ULS load cases.

- The value to use in SLS is defined in Eurocode 2 ANNEX B, formula (B.1).

- The value to use in ULS is defined in Eurocode 2 formula (5.19)

Regarding the value of the creep coefficient to introduce for ULS, the designer has to pay attention
because it will be their responsibility to calculate the following formula (5.19).

It may be very difficult for a designer to calculate the value M0Eqp/M0Ed for every column and apply this
value manually. Especially in the case of large buildings.

I contacted FEM support about this and they advised me to use highest creep value calculated for all
columns and to not calculate the value M0Eqp/M0Ed and set it equal to 1.

In my opinion this is not the right way to perform the design, because the 2nd order moments
calculated setting ϕef=1 or ϕef=2 are very different.

It has to be note that from the previous version of FEM, there is no longer the environmental class in
concrete / application data dialog because it has no role in the calculations. This is because when
designing reinforced concrete, Eurocode 2 UK NA considers the same crack width limit for every
environmental class.

1
The designer has to pay attention to the values t, t0, t∞ (expressed in days) to insert in formulas
(5.19) and (B.1) in order to find the creep coefficient in both the ultimate and serviceability states.

2) CHECK OF SLENDER COLUMNS

A problem linked with both this and the previous FEM version is the way the slenderness limit is
calculated.

FEM performs this calculation considering always C=0.7. Even if Eurocode 2 allow designers to set this
value equal to 0.7, in my opinion it is too conservative to always use this value. This is because out of
the three factors A, B and C, C will have the largest impact on λLIM. The value of the factor C is due to
the bending moment, as shown in the figure below.

It is clear that FEM performs the design with a value of rm=1, considering the end moments M01 and
M02 always show/give tension in the same side.

This means that the designer is frequently having slender columns, and as a result has to consider the
additional 2nd order moments for those columns. This obviously means an increase of applied
reinforcement.

2
This way to calculate the factor C is simpler for a software company but is very conservative for a
designer. I have made FEM support aware of this problem, and they said that there is a possibility
that this matter will be considered in future versions.

3) SETUP CALCULATION BY LOAD COMBINATIONS

An important update is that the load combinations calculation can be run with different options as
shown below.

This allow the user to perform the different types of analysis only for the required combinations. In
practice it is now possible to perform crack analysis only for quasi-permanent load combination
instead of all the serviceability combinations, and therefore this reduces the amount of reinforcement
needed and the time FEM takes to calculate.

4) LOADS GROUP
In Load groups dialog, with FEM 14 the user has the opportunity to choose one of the combination
methods offered by Eurocode. Two methods of determining the combination of actions are allowed
for the STR Ultimate Limit States.

3
If the designer needs to perform a crack analysis, they don’t have to use load groups. As the crack
analysis is a non-linear calculation, the principle of superposition is not true. As a result the crack
analysis is not applicable for load groups and the calculation has to be executed for every single
combination.

5) 2nd ORDER ANALYSIS

With FEM-14, it is possible to perform 3 different methods of analysis to consider 2nd order effects, as
indicated in Eurocode 2.

- General method (non linear analysis of the structure including geometric non-linearity)
- Method based on nominal stiffness (simplified method)
- Method based on nominal curvature (simplified method)

Cracked section analysis is required in the ULS if flexural buckling should be calculated according to
the general method. This method is used in the program if 2nd order and cracked section is chosen in
the analysis, and if in the calculation parameter the "Consider 2nd order analysis" option is selected.
The general method is normally not conservative, but there could also be situations where the general
method is conservative compared to the simplified methods especially with large moments where the
stiffness is largely reduced by cracking. One situation where a larger buckling capacity normally is
found for the general method is columns or walls with a dominant compression force which does not
crack.

A 2nd order analysis can of course detect this, but the simplified methods normally considers some
cracking in all cases.

If a design according to the general method is performed then no design according to one of the
simplified methods is made by FEM.

4
 6) SPRING FOUNDATION
If the supports are modelled using springs and they are detached in z’ tension this mean that the
springs are able to resist only in compression. If this is the case then a non-linear analysis is required.

If in the connection where the detached behavior is defined (e.g. z’ tension), the connective force is
tension in the given direction (z’) in an iterative step all of the other spring constant will be set to 0. If
in any later iterative step the connective force will be compression, the spring constants will be set to
the previously defined values.

There is a big difference between setting any of the components to zero or selecting a detached
behavior. If the user manually sets a component to zero, in the analysis, the connection or support
will not have rigidity in that direction.

7) UPLIFT
Uplift can be modelled typing 0 in all tension fields (free rotation components are recommended for
the uplift case), and by checking non-linear analysis in setup calculation by load combinations. In this
way it is possible to consider the non-linear behavior of supports.

8) GEOMETRIC IMPERFECTIONS
It is possible to introduce the effects of geometric imperfections (Eurocode 2, 5.2) by generating
“deviation load” into FEM. Deviation loads are placed automatically in the centre of gravity points of
plates located on stories.

The effects of geometric imperfection (‘notional horizontal loads’) are considered in addition to lateral
loads.

Imperfections shall be taken into account in ULS and they need not be considered for SLS.

5
 9) SHRINKAGE

The shrinkage has to be added in the calculation parameter of the bar only if there has been a load
combination that consider shrinkage.