Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Verification Problems
Copyright 2012 by RISA Technologies, LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of the contents of this
publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any means without the express written
permission of RISA Technologies, LLC.
We have done our best to insure that the material found in this publication is both useful and
accurate. However, please be aware that errors may exist in this publication, and that RISA
Technologies, LLC makes no guarantees concerning accuracy of the information found here or in
the use to which it may be put.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Verification Overview ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
Verification Problem 1: Composite ASD #1 .................................................................................................................. 3
Verification Problem 2: Composite ASD #2 .................................................................................................................. 5
Verification Problem 3: Composite LRFD #1 .............................................................................................................. 7
Verification Problem 4: Composite LRFD #2 ............................................................................................................... 9
Verification Problem 5: Composite LRFD #3 ............................................................................................................ 11
Verification Problem 6: Floor Vibrations ................................................................................................................... 13
Verification Problem 7: Steel Joist Design .................................................................................................................. 15
Verification Problem 8: Composite ASD 14th .......................................................................................................... 17
Verification Problem 9: Composite LRFD 14th ....................................................................................................... 19
Verification Problem 10: Live Load Reduction ........................................................................................................ 21
Verification Overview
Verification Overview
Verification Methods
We at RISA Technologies maintain a library of dozens of test problems used to validate the
computational aspects of RISA programs. In this verification package we will present a
representative sample of these test problems for your review and compare RISAFloor to textbook
or AISC 14th edition manual design examples.
The input for these test problems was formulated to test RISAFloors performance, not necessarily
to show how certain structures should be modeled and 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
application. The RISAFloor solutions for each of these problems are compared to these AISC 14th
edition examples. If discrepancies occur between the RISAFloor and the referenced solution results
we will give an explanation.
The data for each of these verification problems is provided. The files where these RISAFloor
problems are located is in the C:\RISA\Examples directory and they are called Verification
Problem 1.rfl (2, 3, etc). The PDF document is located in the C:\RISA\Manuals directory and is
called Floor Verification Problems.pdf
Verification Version
This document contains problems that have been verified in RISAFloor version 7.0.
=
=
=
=
=
36 ft
8 ft
4 in
145 pcf
3.0 ksi (n is assumed to equal 9)
36 ksi
100 psf
20 psf
8 psf
7 psf (assumed)
Figure 1.1
Validation Method
The composite beam properties, beam stresses and deflections are compared with the results given
in the ASD manual, with these modifications.
1. In order to force the n value (Es/Ec) to be equal to the value assumed in the example (9.0),
the Ec was set to 3222.22 ksi.
2. The actual beam self weight was set to zero by making the density zero so that results
would match the examples assumptions.
3. Partition and ceiling load was lumped in with live load for total live load.
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)
RISAFloor (AISC 9th Ed. ASD)
ASD Manual
MDL (k-ft)
71.712
71.3
% Difference
0.58
MLL (k-ft)
165.88
166
0.07
Vmax (kips)
26.4
26.4
beff (in)
48 + 48 = 96
96
Itr (in^4)
2411.05
2420
Str (in^3)
121.957
122
ybar (in)
19.8
0.15
fc (ksi)
0.443
0.44
0.68
DL (in)
0.684
0.68
0.59
Value
LL (in)
fb (ksi)
Vh (k)
# of Studs
0.553
0.55
26.88
26.8
234
234
42
21*2 = 42
Table 1.1 Results Comparison
Conclusion
The program results match the ASD manual within a reasonable round off error.
0.37
0.04
0.54
0.30
0
0
28 ft
8 ft
4 in
150 pcf (0.145 pcf used in RISA)
3 ksi (n is assumed to equal 9)
36 ksi
150 psf
40 plf (assumed)
Figure 2.1
Validation Method
The composite beam properties, beam stresses and deflections are compared with the results given
in the text, with these modifications:
In order to force the n value (Es/Ec) to be equal to the assumed 9.0, the Ec was set to
3222.22 ksi.
To compare results an allowance for beam weight of 40 plf was added as a line load. The
actual beam self weight was set to zero so that results would match the examples
assumptions.
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)
RISAFloor (AISC 9th Ed. ASD)
Text
MDL (k-ft)
41.813*
43
% Difference
2.76
MLL (k-ft)
117.6
118
0.34
beff (in)
42*2 = 84
84
0.00
Itr (in^4)
1315.13
1312
0.24
ytop (in)
4.2
4.2
0.00
Str (in^3)
83.77
84
0.37
fc (ksi)
0.501
0.502/0.69**
0.20
Value
fby (ksi)
Vh (k)
# of Studs
25.75*
26
190.8
191
48
24*2 = 48
Table 2.1 Results Comparison
0.96
0.10
0. 00
*RISAFloor defaults to a self-weight of 0.145 kcf where the example uses 0.150 kcf.
** The Salmon & Johnson example used the FULL loading to compute concrete stresses. The ASD
specification requires the checking of concrete stresses only for loading applied AFTER the concrete
has hardened. If you remove the 43 k*ft DL moment then you will get fc = 0.502 ksi.
Conclusion
The program results match the textbook example within a reasonable round off error. The only
significant difference is attributed to a calculation difference in the textbook and the self-weight of
the deck.
Figure 3.1
Validation Method
The composite beam properties, beam stresses and deflections are compared with the results given
in the text.
Note: In order to force the n value (Es/Ec) to be equal to the assumed 8.0, the Ec was set to 3625
ksi.
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)
Item
RISAFloor
Text
% Difference
y_bar (in)
4.197
4.202 / 4.14*
0.12
Itr (in^4)
1531.4
1526 / 1524*
0.35
C (steel) (kips)
381.6
381.6
0.00
a (in)
1.29
1.29
0.00
Mn (kip-ft)
391.30
390.5
0.20
Conclusion
Even given the program limitations, the results match the textbook example within a reasonable
round off error. The only significant difference is attributed to the small portion of the concrete
slab which is located below the neutral axis.
Figure 4.1
Validation Method
The composite beam properties, beam stresses and deflections are compared with the results given
in the text.
Note that these results can be found in the detail report for member M1. You may need to view
different load categories or combinations in the detail report to find these results.
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)
Item
RISAFloor
Text
% Difference
Mu (preDL) (kip-ft)
51.6
51.6
Mu (DL+LL) (kip-ft)
162.738
162.7
0.02
Cf (kips)
276.48
276.5
0.01
1.205
1.205
235
0.02
Phi*Vn (kips)
0.85*276.43
= 234.96
76.3
76.3
Qn (kips)
16.12
21.4
25.00**
Conclusion
The program results match the textbook example within a reasonable round off error.
10
=
=
50 ksi
30 ft
10 ft.
3.25 supported by a 3 inch metal deck perpendicular to beam
115 pcf
3.5 ksi
1.3 k/ft (service)
0.9 k/ft (service)
Figure 5.1
Validation Method
The composite beam properties, beam stresses and deflections for member M5 (shown in Figure
5.1 above) are compared with the results given in the text.
11
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)
Item
RISAFloor
Text
% Difference
355.5
360
1.25
Ms (LL) (kip-ft)
146.25
146
0.21
363
0.28
0.85*428
= 364.02*
1.434
1.43
0.28
Phi*Vn (kips)
104.34
106
1.57
Qn (kips)
19.85
19.8
0.25
# of studs required
40
40
0.00
LL Ratio
L/538
L/434
19.33**
Conclusion
The program results match the textbook example within a reasonable round off error.
12
Description
Span Length =
Beam spacing =
Slab thickness =
Concrete
=
Beam
Girder
Slab + Deck
Live Load
DL Equip
Beam Weight
=
=
=
=
=
=
35 ft
10 ft
3.25 in + 2 inch ribs
110 pcf
4 ksi (n is assumed to equal 9)
W18x35
W21x50
42 psf
11 psf
4 psf
40 plf (assumed)
Figure 6.1
Validation Method
The model was built in RISAFloor exactly as it was described in the AISC design guide. Results for
Member M13, shown above in Figure 6.1, are compared to the results in the design example.
13
Comparison of Beam
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)
Value
RISAFloor
DG-11
% Difference
beff (in)
120
120
0.00
Ij (in4)
1832.5
1833
0.03
wj (plf)
605
605
0.00
j (in)
0.384
0.384
0.00
fj (Hz)
5.704
5.71
0.11
Ds (in4/ft)
8.219
8.25
0.38
Dj (in4/ft)
183.3
183
0.16
Bj (ft)
32.214
32.2
0.04
Wj (kip)
102.327
102
0.23
Ig (in4)
3273
3285
0.36
wg (plf)
2168
2168
0.00
g (in)
0.416
0.415
0.24
fg(Hz)
5.482
5.49
0.14
Bg (ft)
63.9
63.8
0.16
Wg (kip)
118.7
119
0.25
W (kip)
110.55
111
0.41
fn(Hz)
4.025
4.03
0.12
ap/g
0.479%
0.48%
0.21
Conclusion
The program results match the textbook example within a reasonable round-off error.
14
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
30-0
10-0
9 psf
18 psf
160 plf @ 0-0 to 0 plf @ 8-0
500 lbs @ 21-0
800 lbs @ 23-0
300 lbs @ 27-0
Figure 7.1
Validation Method
The equivalent uniform loads (UDL, ULL, & UTL) on member PUR7, shown above in Figure 7.1, are
compared with the results given in the SJI example. Because the example assumes a joist self
weight that is included in the uniform dead load on the joist, the joist size has been hard coded to an
18K9 (10.2 plf). This combined with a dead load of 8 psf has been used to produce a 90 plf dead
load on the member.
15
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)
Value
RISAFloor
SJI Example
% Difference
RL (lbs)
5000
5000
0.00
RR (lbs)
UTL Due to RMax (lbs/ft)
5340
392
5340
356
0.00
NA*
16.25
30-13.85 =
16.15**
0.6
MMax @ L1 (ft-lbs)
36.65
36,903
0.64
Not Listed**
328
NA
The minimum end reaction required to produce a shear envelope that will encompass the shear at
X = 23-0 is 5906.6 lbs. This equates to an equivalent uniform total load of UTL = 2*5906.6/30 =
394 lbs/ft. The program produces UTL = 392 lbs/ft (0.5% error), which is within a reasonable
rounding error.
**The SJI example starts from the opposite end as is done in RISAFloor, so the inverse value is
calculated here.
***The UTL due to MMax is not specifically listed by the program because it did not control when
compared to the UTL due to RMax.
Conclusion
The program results match the SJI example for most values. Any items not matching are explained
in the footnotes above.
16
Description
Figure 8.1
Validation Method
The model was built in RISAFloor exactly as it was described in the AISC design guide using ASD
design. Results for member PUR6, shown above in Figure 8.1, are compared to the results in the
design example.
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)
Value
RISAFloor
% Difference
265.79
266
0.08
0.587
0.51
480.9
481
0.02
515.8**
512
0.74
0.971
0.946
2.64
0.982***
1.26
21.7
396.3
390
1.62
158.1
158
0.06
17
Conclusion
The program results match the textbook example within a reasonable round-off error, with the
exception of the difference in moment of inertia.
18
Description
Figure 9.1
Validation Method
The model was built in RISAFloor exactly as it was described in the AISC design guide using LRFD.
The results for member M4, as shown in Figure 9.1 above, are compared to the results in the design
example.
19
Comparison
Comparison of Results (Units Specified Individually)
Value
RISAFloor
% Difference
Pre-Composite Flexural
Strength Demand (kip-ft)
622.3
624
0.27
Pre-Composite Flexural
Strength (kip-ft)
677.1
677
0.01
0.292+ 0.75 =
1.042
1.01*
3.2
1216.3
1220
0.30
1120
1120
0.00
0.9*1430.33 =
1287.3**
1280
0.57
21.54
21.5
0.19
603.04 (28
anchors)***
3.79
Itr (in4)
6775.9
6800
0.35
Iequiv (in4)
5531****
5490
0.75
0.513
0.547*****
6.22
315.48
315
0.15
Conclusion
The program results match the textbook example within a reasonable round-off error.
20
Validation Method
The values obtained by the RISAFloor model will be compared to the following hand calculations
per the ASCE 7-2010, sections 4.7 and 4.8.
Roof Level
o
Member M2 on gridline 4:
Member M3 on gridline F:
21
Member M4 on gridline 1:
22
Floor Level
o
Member M1 on gridline D:
23
Member M3 on gridline F:
24
Comparison
Floor Level: Roof
Unreduced
Design
Live Load
Trib.
Area
(Hand
Calc)
Trib. Area
(RISAFloor
Calc)
Reduc.
Factor
Reduc.
Factor
Reduced
Design
Live
Load
Member
Lo (psf)
AT (ft2)
AT (ft2)
R1
R2
Lr (psf)
Factor
RISAFloor
RLL
Factor
% Diff
M2
20
812.66
819.01
0.60
1.00
12.00
0.6
0.6
0.00
M3
20
954.00
953.99
0.60
1.00
12.00
0.6
0.6
0.00
M4
L1_CS2
(G-2)
L1_CS6
(G-7)
20
513.00
513.00
0.69
1.00
13.74
0.687
0.687
0.00
20
495.00
495.00
0.71
1.00
14.10
0.705
0.705
0.00
20
175.75
175.54
1.00
1.00
20.00
0.00
25
Trib.
Area
(Hand
Calc)
Trib. Area
(RISAFloor
Calc)
Element
Factor
(per
Table 42)
Reduced
Design
Live
Load
Member
Lo (psf)
AT (ft2)
AT (ft2)
KLL
L (psf)
Factor
RISAFloor
LL Factor
% Diff
M1
100
2187.00
2172.00
47.68
0.500
0.5
0.00
M3
L1_CS3
(G-3)
L1_CS4
(A-1)
100
954.00
953.99
59.34
0.593
0.5934
0.00
100
990.00
989.99
48.84
0.488
0.4884
0.01
100
175.75
175.50
81.57
0.816
0.8161
0.04
Conclusion
The program results match the hand calculation results within a reasonable rounding error.
26