Structural Modelling Manual by ARUP

Structural Guidance Note 3.
5a
Structural Modelling Manual
STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE NOTE 3.5 REV A

STRUCTURAL MODELLING MANUAL
CONTENTS
1
Introduction
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
Modelling principles
The Aims of Structural Analysis
Modelling procedure
Selecting the Model and its Properties
Scheme design models, Final analysis models
Preliminary Hand Analysis
Computer analysis
Checking the results
Using the results
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Modelling Specific Structural Members

General Considerations
Beams and Columns
General Principles, Members of uniform straight cross section, Members of
non uniform straight section, Perforated members, Curved members
Joints and connections between beams and columns
General Principles, Joints in Concrete frames, Joints in steel frames, Joints
in other materials
Slabs and Walls
General, Floor slabs in large building models, Suspended floor slab
analysis - flat slabs, Suspended floor slab analysis - beam and slab, Shear
walls in large models , Shear wall analysis, Basement floor slab analysis flat slab, Basement Floor Slab analysis - beam and slab, Plate and shell
structures
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Modelling Specific Structure Types

Multistorey buildings
Roof structures
Symmetrical structures
Tunnels and culverts
Cylindrical structures
Bridge decks
Member section properties

General, Cross Sectional Area (A) and Shear factors (Ky, Kz), Flexural
Second Moment of Area (Iyy, Izz), Torsional Second Moment of Area (J)
6
6.1
6.2
Material properties
General
Reinforced Concrete
Properties for ultimate strength analysis, Properties for serviceability
analysis, Properties for dynamic analysis
Steel
Composite
Timber
Other materials
Wrought Iron, Cast Iron, Masonry, Aluminium
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
1/44
April 03
Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

7
7.1
7.2
7.3
Modelling Loads
General
Point of application of load
Self weight
7.4
Other permanent loads
7.5
Transient loads
7.6
Internal loads
Temperature, Lack of fit, Prestress, Support settlement
Modelling restraints
General, Restraint at ground, Raft Foundations, Global restraints, Support
settlement
Modelling for dynamic analysis
10
10.1
10.2
Interpretation of results
Beams and columns
Slabs and walls
11
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
11.9
11.10
11.11
11.12
11.13
11.14
11.15
11.16
11.17
11.18
11.19
Additional Information
Warnings and errors during analysis
Concrete post processing of 2D element results
P-delta effects
Modelling castellated beams, trusses etc. by shear beams
Modelling beams with long slabs
Grillage analogy for slabs
Setting up a model with 2-D elements
Axis systems and element orientation
Section properties for standard shapes
Multi storey frame models
Modelling bridge decks
Section properties from first principles
Modelling haunched beams
Modelling elements with rigid ends
Modelling beams and slab floors with in plane stresses
Symmetrical & anti-symmetrical loads
Equivalent loads for pre-stressing
Properties of standard materials
Holes in reinforced concrete beams
12
Revision History
2/44
April 03

1 INTRODUCTION
This note gives guidance on the representation of a real structure by an idealised model which can
then be analysed.
2 MODELLING PRINCIPLES
2.1 The Aims of Structural Analysis
Analysis is an essential part of the structural design process. Analysis gives us the numbers with
which to justify the adequacy of the structure in terms of strength, stability and stiffness.
However we do not analyse 'the structure' but a mathematical model whose properties and behaviour
we aim to select so that it adequately represents the real structure. The approximations and
assumptions which must be made to create this model mean there can be no such thing as an exact
model.
There is a commonly held belief that present day analysis is necessarily more 'accurate' than earlier
methods were. However, while results of computer analysis are 'precise', unless the analytical model
is carefully chosen the results may be misleading and could be dangerously wrong.
Before embarking on an analysis it is necessary to consider what analysis is needed:
What needs to be demonstrated, what will dictate the design?
Eg strength, deflection, stability
What is the simplest model which can demonstrate this?
The simplest model will be the easiest to understand, the quickest to set up and
use and so probably the most cost effective
What effects will be ignored or misrepresented by this model? Are they significant?
Eg the analysis will normally assume linear elastic materials and small
deflections.
What results will be produced? Can they be used to demonstrate the desired effect?
Eg 2D element analysis produces stresses which may not be easy to convert into
design forces and moments.
What will happen to the reactions from this model?
Eg Can the foundations resist the forces generated?
3/44
April 03

2.2 Modelling procedure

There are a number of steps in the production and analysis of a mathematical model of a structure.
Engineering judgement is needed throughout the process, and the modelling decisions made should
be reviewed as part of the design review.
Decide how much of the structure to model. (section 2.3)
Decide how much detail is needed in the model. This will depend on whether the model is
for scheme design or final analysis . (section 2.3)
Define geometry of model
Define member sizes and shapes (section 5)
Decide on appropriate material properties (section 6)
Define loading to be applied
Decide how to apply the load (section 7)
Analyse the model
Review analysis results (section 2.6)
2.3 Selecting the Model and its Properties
Scheme design models
The model needed for a quick scheme design can usually be very much simpler than the
model used for final detailed design calculations, and in many cases hand calculations
will be sufficient. The form of the structure is still evolving at this stage and
fundamental parameters may need to be altered or varied to determine the most
appropriate design.
Issues which are not considered at this stage but which need to be investigated at a later
stage, should be clearly identified for the final designer to pick up. Members derived
from such simple models should be sized conservatively to allow for design
development.
Final analysis models
Once the detailed structural geometry has been defined, use of a more complex model
may be justified. The capacity of the latest generation of computer programs makes it
possible to build very large and complex models but these can be counterproductive,
because the volume of data may increase the chances of errors and makes it more
difficult to pick them up. For many structures, analysis of simple sub frames will be
adequate for final design.
A structure should only be analysed as a three-dimensional model if the designer is
satisfied that simpler models cannot adequately predict the behaviour. This remains true
if a three-dimensional CAD model of the structure has been created. For further
guidance on when a three-dimensional model is appropriate see multistorey buildings
(section 4.1)
2.4 Preliminary Hand Analysis
The engineer must be able to visualise how he or she expects the structure to work, and must have an
idea of the magnitude and form of answers anticipated, before any analysis is done. A sketch of the
expected deflected form and some simple hand calculations should always be done, however
complex the model, to ensure that gross errors in modelling will be picked up.
4/44
April 03

2.5 Computer Analysis

Most computer programs for structural analysis will carry out a linear elastic analysis, assume
deflections are not large enough to affect the force distribution and assume that plane sections
remain plane. The engineer must always remember that these assumptions are being made and
consider whether they are appropriate to the structure being modelled.
In structures where deflection would affect the forces in the structure, these effects need to be
considered (P-delta effects section 11.3). The assumption that plane sections remain plane is not
valid at complex joints and discontinuities and a more detailed analysis in such areas, using 2D
elements, may be necessary. Walls, slabs and plates may be modelled using a grillage of skeletal
elements, or by using 2D elements. Special structures (eg cable nets) or loadings (eg seismic) may
require more complex models and/or analyses. Specialist advice should be sought before starting
such analysis.
Problems may be encountered during analysis which either prevent results being produced, or give
warnings that the analysis may not be valid.(section 11.1)
Input data should always be checked carefully. Some one who did not develop the model should
check it. The analysis program's facilities for graphical representation of the data should be used to
the full in checking.
2.6 Checking the results
Always confirm that no warning messages were produced by the computer during the analysis. If
warnings have been produced, their implications should be evaluated before proceeding further. See
the program manual for guidance on this topic.
Results should always be checked against the preliminary hand analysis.
Look at the deflected form of the structure under each basic loadcase, looking at the
magnitude of peak deflections as well as the form.
Compare the sum of reactions for each basic loadcase with the applied load (to check for
analysis errors like ill conditioning) and the total load on the model with the total load on the
structure (to check for input errors).
If the model and loading is symmetrical, check the results are symmetrical.
Check the restraints are restraining the structure in the intended directions.
Compare bending moment, shear force, axial load and reaction plots from the computer
analysis with the predictions.
If the results do not correspond to the predictions the following procedure should be followed:
Check the input data again, graphically and line by line.
Check that elements are correctly orientated and relative stiffnesses are sensible.
Check that loading is correctly applied.
Seek advice from colleagues and/or specialists.
Review the modelling assumptions.
Review the hand analysis. Examination of the computer results may show trends which were
not previously recognised, which can in turn lead to a radical reinterpretation of the
behaviour of the structure.
If after this the hand calculations and the computer results cannot be reconciled seek advice. Never
accept the results of a computer analysis without an engineering explanation for the behaviour
predicted by the computer. A number of expensive mistakes have been made in recent years by
engineers who have ignored this rule.
5/44
April 03

2.7 Using the results

Once the results have been checked and found to be reasonable they can be used for member design.
The results from the analysis of a skeletal structure can often be used directly for design but most
other results will need to be post-processed to derive forces which can be used in member design.
(section 10)
3 MODELLING SPECIFIC STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
3.1 General Considerations
Structures are generally made up of three types of member:
A beam or column, with a length

which is large compared to its
cross sectional dimensions.
A slab, wall or plate, with a

thickness which is small
compared to its length and
breadth eg a concrete slab.
A solid, with significant

dimensions in all three directions,
eg a small deep pilecap.
Divisions between these categories are not always clear cut.

Analytical models in a computer are made up of discrete, 'finite' elements, which are only connected
together at their extremities (as opposed to the actual structure with its infinitesimal elements
forming a continuum). Again these finite elements come in three types:
A one-dimensional element,
defined by the position of its two
ends and the properties of its
cross section, connected at its
ends only (a beam element).
A two dimensional element,

defined by the position of its
corners and a thickness,
connected at its edges only (a
plate or shell element).
A three dimensional element,

defined by the position of its
corners, connected at its faces
(a brick element). This type of
element is used in specialised
structural analysis only and
will not be considered further
in this note.
The divisions between these types are clear-cut. A one-dimensional element is always represented
mathematically by a line of zero cross section and a two dimensional element by a surface of zero
thickness.
6/44
April 03

The selection of the appropriate idealised element to model specific members of real structures is
described below .
3.2 Beams and Columns
General Principles
Generally these are the easiest members to represent in a model. There will be a simple
correspondence between the member in the structure and the element in the model. Problems come
at joints where the members meet (section 3.3), and where forces in the member are changed by
deflection under load (P-delta effects section 11.3).
Members of uniform straight cross section

Simple bending theory, assuming plane sections remain plane and neglecting shear deformations,
gives an adequate model of beams with a span/depth ratio of 10 or more (for steel and concrete). A
shear beam, which includes the effect of shear deformation, should be used for elements with a
smaller span/depth ratio. Using shear beams for all elements will not increase the size of the problem
for the program and so their use is recommended.
It is generally assumed that only part of the cross section of a beam resists shear deformation (eg the
web of an I beam) and so the proportion of the cross section which is assumed to carry shear has to
be defined, usually by a shear factor (section 5.2).
Once the span/depth ratio is 2.5 or less a reinforced concrete beam should be designed as a deep
beam in accordance with CIRIA Guide 2.
Deep steel beams with a span/depth ratio of 1 or less are unlikely to behave as beams and should be
stiffened to suit a strut and tie model.
7/44
April 03

Members of non uniform straight section
Haunched and tapered beams can be analysed by choosing a mean stiffness or by modelling different
parts of the beam with different properties. (section 11.13)
Perforated members
Isolated holes or recesses which extend over less than 5% of the length of the beam do not
significantly affect its stiffness and can be ignored in analysis (but must be considered in design of
the member). Local effects around holes need to be considered in design, detailed guidance for
dealing with holes in reinforced concrete beams is given in section 11.19.
A member with a line of holes (for example a castellated beam), a truss or a Vierendeel girder can be
modelled as a single shear beam. (section 11.4)
8/44
April 03

Larger holes and long slots should be represented in the model by splitting the member into sections.
(section 11.5)
Curved members
A curved member may be modelled as a series of straights. Generally the angle between successive
elements modelling a circular arc should not exceed 15 degrees.
The curve introduces additional forces into the member which are not modelled by the series of
straights. To include for these effects within the model, each member between intersections with
other members needs to be modelled by at least two elements (or more if necessary to satisfy the 15
degree rule given above). The additional node should be placed at the point of maximum deviation
of the curve from the straight line joining the ends.
3.3 Joints and connections between beams and columns
General Principles
One-dimensional elements in a model have zero cross section and so they meet at a point. The
connection at this idealised point in the model can be one of two types:
A rigid joint, in which there is no relative rotation between elements meeting at a point.
A pinned joint, in which no moment is transferred between elements meeting at a joint.
A partially fixed joint, where a rotational spring is used to transfer moment across a joint while
allowing some rotation, could be included in a model but the value to be used for the spring stiffness
is uncertain. If the analysis is sensitive to joint stiffness, then analysing for both a fully fixed and
fully pinned condition, and designing for the worst case in each element is recommended for
strength design.
Because real members are not of zero thickness, they never meet at a point. True pins are rare, unless
a proprietary bearing is used. Truly rigid joints never occur, although many joints are stiff enough
for the difference to be neglected. Joints in steel structures (section 3.3.3) even when apparently stiff
are usually modelled as pinned which simplifies joint design and ensures that members designed to
resist sway carry all horizontal loads. Where a nominally pinned joint has to be able to rotate (for
example at the end of a long 'simply supported' truss) the capacity of the actual connection to
accommodate those rotations must be checked.
9/44
April 03

Joints in Concrete frames
Joints in monolithic concrete frames should normally be modelled as rigid. It is unrealistic to model
any monolithic joint as pinned, and reinforcement must be provided to limit cracking in all such
cases. If in a subframe analysis a beam is assumed to be pinned to the columns then column
moments will need to be calculated separately. A better solution is to model the columns as part of
the subframe.
Finite Joints
Where the members intersecting at an idealised joint have substantially different flexural stiffnesses,
the stiffer members will restrain the flexure of the other members. These flexible members can be
modelled using a single element with a transformed stiffness, or an element with rigid ends. (section
11.14)
Large joints can be analysed using 2D elements to determine the distribution of stresses and to give a
better estimate of stiffness of the joint. Note that the dilation of 2D elements under axial load is
restrained by rigid constraints and supports (which are a convenient way to apply loads from a beam
analysis to such models), giving some unexpected and normally spurious stresses local to the
constraint.
10/44
April 03

Joints in steel frames
The cost of joints between members in a steel structure is a large proportion of the total cost. It is
therefore desirable, wherever possible, to use simple design methods, assuming pinned connections.
In triangulated structures (trusses) rotations at joints are usually small and so even welded joints can
be considered as pinned. Joint fixity is needed for stability in the design of moment frames and
portals and should normally be assumed when a steel member is continuous through a joint.
Haunched joints in portals need to be modelled by more than just a beam and column meeting at a
point.
At the end of a steel truss, where a number of steel members meet at 'a point', it would be normal to
join the diagonal bracing member to the beam before the beam is joined to the column. The beam to
column connection will therefore need to be designed for the resultant of the forces in the beam and
diagonal, not just for the end forces in the beam as derived from the analysis.
There are often situations where it is not appropriate for the centrelines of members to meet at a
point and generally the resulting eccentricity needs to be modelled. EC3 annex K.3 allows small
eccentricities to be ignored (the eccentricity has to be less than between 0.25 and .55 times the main
member depth, depending on the arrangement of the joint)
Joints in other materials
Joints in timber
Achieving a rigid joint in timber construction is very difficult, so joints should generally be modelled
as pinned. Connections are often eccentric and the moments generated by this and by partial fixity
need to be considered in design.
11/44
April 03

Joints in masonry
Unreinforced masonry joints cannot take tension.
Unreinforced masonry should not generally be analysed in a linear elastic program.
3.4 Slabs and Walls
3.4.1 General
The modelling of slabs and walls is more complicated than the modelling of beams and columns.
There are often several different ways in which a given member can be modelled and the best model
to use will depend on a number of factors:
Is it subject to in-plane forces, out of plane forces, or a combination?
Is it a uniform isotropic material? (reinforced concrete isnt) If not can the results be
manipulated to give useable design forces?
Is it to be modelled on its own or as part of a larger model?
On its own:
Is it a simple, regular structure that can be designed using simple rules, without
computer modelling?
Are there holes or discontinuities that will lead to stress concentrations?
As part of a larger model:
Are forces within the slab or wall of interest in this model, or just its effect on
the surrounding members?
To illustrate the approach to modelling slabs and walls the following sections show how these
factors influence the selection of models for some common structural members.
3.4.2 Floor slabs in large building models
Where a large irregular building consists entirely of sway frames, a 3D skeletal model is often
appropriate (but not for buildings with stability cores section 4.1). Floor slabs in such buildings will
generally be very stiff in plane compared to the columns (except at the base of tall buildings where
columns are likely to be very stiff ) and axial forces in the slabs are generally neglected in slab
design. The simplest way to represent the high in plane stiffness of such slabs in the model is to link
the nodes attached to the slab rigidly together at each level to prevent relative in-plane movement.
If the model is to be used to investigate shrinkage, prestress or temperature effects then a rigid link
cannot be used. A mesh of 2D elements or a grillage of beams could be used to model the slab but
these effects would normally only be investigated in local element models of either a flat
slab (section 3.4.3) or a beam and slab deck (section 3.4.4).
3.4.3 Suspended floor slab analysis - flat slabs
Simple methods of analysing regular flat slabs, including coffered slabs, spanning in one or two
directions are described in BS8110 (and EC2) and more details are given in CIRIA Report 110.
These methods should generally be used where possible.
In-plane stresses in suspended slabs, for example those generated as horizontal wind loads are
transferred from the facade into the stability cores, are generally neglected in analysis. However prop
forces from retaining walls on basement slabs (section 3.4.7) may need to be considered.
If supports are not in a regular pattern then analysis under out of plane loading only can be carried
out by representing the slab as either a grillage of skeletal elements or a mesh of 2D plate bending
12/44
April 03

elements. Note that coffered slabs need to be modelled in such analysis as beam and slab decks(
section 3.4.4). Defining the element properties for grillage analysis (section 11.6) is more
difficult but the 2D element mesh (section 11.7) needs to be set up carefully to ensure adequate
results. Interpreting the results of the 2D element analysis is more difficult, unless a post processor
(section 11.2) is available to convert stresses into areas of reinforcement. Guidance on setting up a
grillage model for a flat slab is given in CIRIA Report 110.
Cracking of concrete close to supports leads to significant redistribution of moment away from the
support. This reduction in stiffness (EI) can be modelled by reducing E in the analysis. Iteration to
refine the extent of cracking is likely to be necessary. Note that this is effectively a non linear
analysis, and so must be done for the appropriate loadcase, since superposition of loadcases is not
applicable. Sharp peaks of moment/stress at internal supports derived from analysis may be
averaged, as in a hand analysis, over half the column strip width.
If there are large voids in such slabs the modelling round these holes needs to be considered
carefully.
Checks for punching shear close to supports or concentrated loads should be done by hand, not by
trying to refine the analytical model of the whole slab.
3.4.4 Suspended floor slab analysis - beam and slab
Simple rules for analysing ribbed slabs (one way spanning) and coffered slabs (two way spanning)
are described in BS8110 (and EC2) and these should generally be used where possible.
In-plane stresses are generally neglected in analysis. However prop forces from retaining walls on
basement slabs (section 3.4.8) may need to be considered.
If supports are not in a regular pattern then analysis under out of plane loading only can be carried
out by representing the slab as a grillage (section 11.6) of skeletal elements. 2D element analysis of
ribbed or coffered slabs is not recommended.
13/44
April 03

If there are large voids in such slabs the modelling round these holes needs to be considered
carefully.
Checks for punching shear close to supports or concentrated loads should be done by hand, not by
trying to refine the analytical model of the whole slab.
3.4.5 Shear walls in large models
Where a shear wall is to be included in the model of a large building (section 11.10) it will often be
sufficient to model it as a vertical 1D element. Rigid links, or rigid ended elements (section 11.14),
can then be used to join the point where horizontal elements intersect the edge of the wall to the 1D
element representing the wall.
3.4.6 Shear wall analysis
If a shear wall has a complex shape, with voids in different places on different floors, a 2D element
plane stress analysis should be done to identify stress concentrations round the voids.
Out of plane bending of shear walls is normally neglected, because there is other structure
perpendicular to the wall which will resist this bending. If this is not the case a general 2D element
model, which can carry both in plane and out of plane moments, can be used.
Setting up the 2D element mesh needs to be done carefully to ensure adequate results, particularly at
corners of holes (section 11.7). The mesh illustrated above has been refined in these areas to achieve
this.
Interpretation of the results of this analysis into required areas of reinforcement is complicated and
the use of a post processor is recommended (section 11.2).
3.4.7 Basement floor slab analysis - flat slab
Both in plane forces from surrounding retaining walls and out of plane forces from vertical load, are
often significant in the design of basement floor slabs. Where the geometry of such slabs is complex,
a model using general 2D elements able to resist in plane and out of plane forces can be used. If
beam strips across the slab can be identified then a space frame skeletal model (a grillage able to
accept in plane and out of plane loading) can be easier to use.
14/44
April 03

Setting up the 2D element mesh needs to be done carefully to ensure adequate results (section 11.7).
Interpretation of results of this analysis into required areas of reinforcement is complicated, because
the principal stresses in the element will not normally line up with the reinforcement directions
(section 11.2).
3.4.8 Basement Floor Slab analysis - beam and slab
Where a basement floor slab has ribs, beams, or coffers it can not be represented adequately by a
mesh of 2D elements alone. A grillage of beams gives a good model of out of plane effects and is
not very inaccurate in modelling the in plane strains in a regular slab. A mixture of beam and 2D
elements gives the best model of the behaviour of this sort of floor but interpreting the results from
such a model is very difficult. More details of the options available are given in section 11.15.
3.4.9 Plate and shell structures
General 2D elements can be used to approximate curved surfaces from a series of flat elements.
These structures can then be loaded in any direction. The mesh needs to be fine to limit the angle
between adjacent elements. Specialist advice on modelling curved shells should generally be
sought.
Setting up the 2D element mesh needs to be done carefully to ensure adequate results.(section 11.7)
For steel shells the resultant stresses can be used directly for design, provided the effects of buckling
and shear lag (reducing effective widths) are considered in the design.
For concrete shells, interpretation of the results of this analysis into required areas of reinforcement
is complicated and the use of a post processor is recommended (section 11.2).
4 MODELLING SPECIFIC STRUCTURE TYPES

4.1 Multistorey buildings
For many structures, where lateral stability is provided by stiff cores, simple sub frame models each
containing a single beam and the columns above and below it, will be adequate for the analysis of
concrete structures and simple hand analysis for steel structures. With very unequal spans the
difference in axial loads in adjacent columns can make a subframe analysis inappropriate (because
the heavily loaded column is compressed more). Columns need to be checked at near the top of the
building where bending dominates and axial loads are small. The cores can then be modelled as
plane frames resisting the full lateral load in two orthogonal directions.
Using a three dimensional model of the full building in such cases is not recommended. It would not
only be far more complicated to set up and check but would also imply that the whole structure
15/44
April 03

forms part of the lateral load resisting system. Changes to the secondary elements during design
development or later refurbishment would require re-analysis.
For structures where a three dimensional analysis is needed, various techniques for generating both
simple and complex models have been developed (section 11.10).
4.2 Roof structures
If a roof structure consists of identical primary frames in one direction, supporting purlins spanning
between them, there is no advantage in modelling the whole structure. A plane frame model of the
primary frame will be adequate. Sometimes however frames have different stiffnesses or pick up
different loads and support a continuous secondary structure, stiff enough to transfer loads between
the frames. Determining the distribution of loads between these frames to apply to a series of plane
frames, ensuring compatibility of deflections, would then be complex and iterative. A space frame
model which does this automatically is appropriate.
4.3 Symmetrical structures
If a structure is symmetrical, then only a half or a quarter of the structure needs to be modelled.
However the additional complexity introduced by having to set up different models for
antisymmetric and symmetric loads means that this should only be considered if the full model is too
big for the computer to analyse. Details of the restraint conditions needed on the axes of symmetry
and splitting loads into symmetric and anti-symmetric components are given in section 11.16.
4.4 Tunnels and culverts
Structures with constant cross section over a long distance, without joints and loaded uniformly and
in the plane of the cross section only, can be analysed using 2 dimensional elements in a plane strain
analysis (not to be confused with a plane stress analysis section 3.4.3). However effects close to
joints, local loads and hard points tend to govern such designs, and plane strain analysis is not
appropriate in these areas. Soil structure interaction is also likely to dominate design of tunnels and
specialist advice should be obtained on how to model this.
16/44
April 03

4.5 Cylindrical structures
Cylindrical tanks and other structures where the loading and structure are symmetrical about an axis
of rotation, can be analysed using two dimensional elements in an axisymmetric analysis. Any
departure from symmetry (a wall attached to the side of the tank for example) will invalidate the
analysis.
4.6 Bridge decks
Bridge decks, unlike buildings, tend to be long span isolated structures. The way these decks are
modelled will depend on the form of the deck. Guidance on the modelling of bridge decks (section
11.11) is given in Bridge Deck Behaviour by E.C, Hambly (Spon, 1991)
5 MEMBER SECTION PROPERTIES

General
This section describes the derivation of properties for given shapes of member, assuming they are
formed from uniform linear elastic materials. If the material being used is a composite (eg reinforced
concrete) these properties will need to be modified (section 6).
Most computer programs will generate the properties required by the analysis from the dimensions
of the cross section for standard sections and this facility should be used where possible. Certain
parameters for unsymmetrical standard sections cannot be generated automatically because they
depend on the end connections. Note that modelling an angle or channel section taking any bending,
torsion, or shear is very complicated because the shear centre is outside the section. Properties for
irregular sections may need to be derived by the user.
17/44
April 03

Beams and columns have a cross section which can be defined geometrically and this section has
properties which can be derived from those dimensions. Which properties need to be defined
depends on the type of analysis. The full range of properties (as needed for a 3D space frame
structure) are detailed below.
The properties are defined relative to a local axis system for the element (section 11.8). Details of
this system will be given in the computer program manual, generally the local x axis is along the
length of the element and the y and z axes should be the principal axes of the cross section.
Slabs and walls modelled by 2D elements have a thickness only and no further geometric properties
need to be defined.
Slabs modelled by 1D elements in a grillage are covered in section 11.6
In a linear elastic analysis the reduction of stiffness in compression of slender members due to
buckling is ignored. It is possible to do an iterative analysis of a structure incorporating tie bars
(which can be assumed to take only tension and buckle under compression) by reducing the stiffness
of any tie elements which are found to be in compression, but a non linear analysis may be more
appropriate. Specialist advice should always be sought before carrying out such an analysis.
Cross Sectional Area (A) and Shear factors (Ky, Kz)
The area used for axial stiffness and stress calculations will generally be the cross sectional area (
the concrete section ignoring reinforcement in BS8110). The net area of members perforated by a
series of holes should be used.
The area used for shear stiffness calculations will generally be less than the cross sectional area. It is
usually defined by a shear factor, which is the proportion of the total area which is assumed to carry
shear (e.g. the web of an I beam). Shear factors for various shapes are derived in Structures Note
1992NST_21.
Flexural Second Moment of Area (Iyy, Izz)
The I value used for bending stiffness can be calculated from first principles (section 11.12), and is
tabulated for most rolled sections in published data sheets, and for simple shapes in publications like
the Steel Designers Handbook.
Note that most sections have significantly different I values in the two orthogonal directions and so
the orientation should always be checked visually in the model.
Torsional Second Moment of Area (J)
Calculation of the torsion constant (J) used for torsional stiffness is an area of modelling where the
rules to be applied are complex and the appropriate value to use depends on end conditions as well
as the cross section. Methods of deriving J for commonly occurring shapes are given in section
18/44
April 03

11.12. Note that, except for circular cross sections, the torsion constant is not the polar moment of
inertia (which can be calculated from first principles). For a flat slab modelled as a grillage (section
11.6) the torsional stiffness GJ should equal the bending stiffness EI.
In some structures all torsion constants could be set to zero without significantly affecting the
results. This cannot be done in any structure that relies on torsion to carry the load, such as an
eccentrically loaded beam. Torsional stiffness must not be neglected in torsionally stiff structures
such as box sections. The effect of warping, particularly on open ended box girders, can
significantly reduce the apparent torsional stiffness of such members.
Remember that if torsional stiffness has been included in a model then the torsions derived from the
analysis must be considered in the member design. Simple rules for combining torsions and bending
moments in a grillage are given in Structures Note 1991NST_16.
6 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
6.1 General
The material properties of a uniform linear elastic material can all be derived from the elastic
modulus, E, (also known as Young's Modulus) and Poisson's Ratio, . Values for these two
parameters are tabulated along with the density and coefficient of thermal expansion, for common
construction materials in section 11.18
Because real materials are not uniform, or elastic, some modifications to material or section
properties need to be made, as described below.
6.2 Reinforced Concrete
Reinforced concrete is a composite, made up of two very different materials. Reinforcing steel can
be assumed to be a linear elastic material for the purposes of analysis but the concrete matrix has a
very different stiffness, is subject to shrinkage and creep and cracks under tension. Simple rules
given in design codes allow the use of the concrete section (ignoring reinforcement), the gross
section (including all the concrete and the transformed reinforcement) or the transformed section
(including concrete in the compression zone only plus the transformed reinforcement). Differences
between these values can be significant and the designer needs to consider which is appropriate.
Properties for ultimate strength analysis
Most analysis of concrete structures is concerned with deriving forces for ultimate strength design
and so is not usually sensitive to the absolute stiffness value assumed. Only if the model contains a
mixture of steel and concrete members, or members made from concretes with significantly different
stiffnesses (>15%), or the axial stiffness of columns is important, for example in tall buildings, will
the absolute stiffness of the concrete be important.
If absolute stiffness is not critical, the non linear and composite nature of concrete can be ignored
and the standard material properties (section 11.18) can be used with the concrete section
dimensions. Special rules apply to a flat slab modelled as a grillage (section 11.6). Halving the
torsion constant of any solid concrete member (where this is included in the strength analysis section
5.4) to allow for cracking of the section is a reasonable simplification.
Properties for serviceability analysis
In standard construction, deflection under service loads is generally covered by limiting span/depth
ratios, and cracking is covered by detailing rules. In this case a serviceability analysis is not
normally required.
19/44
April 03

If a serviceability analysis is required then more care needs to be taken with the definition of
stiffness. The results obtained from this analysis are unlikely to be accurate and the possibility that
deflections will be significantly larger or smaller than the calculated value must always be
remembered. The following matters need to be considered in these exceptional cases to determine
the most appropriate values for material and geometrical properties to use:
Creep
If a concrete member is subject to sustained loading it is observed that the deflection increases over
time. The amount of this increase, known as creep, is sensitive to the time after casting at which the
concrete is loaded, the humidity of the atmosphere, concrete mix, member size and subsequent
loading history. The effects of these factors on the degree of creep is defined in the codes of practice
for concrete and is allowed for by modifying the short term elastic modulus by a creep factor. Note
that E is modified by 1/(creep factor + 1). If a serviceability analysis is being carried out it will not
normally be sufficient to accept default values for long term E.
Shrinkage
Unrestrained concrete shrinks with time. Shrinkage needs to be considered in calculating losses in
prestressed concrete. In very large slabs without movement joints and with stiff external restraints
the tensile forces generated by restraint to shrinkage may need to be considered. In a frame analysis
program the effect of shrinkage is entered by specifiying an initial strain on the element or, if this
feature is not available, by specifying a temperature change which will give the equivalent strain.
Reinforcement
Because reinforcing steel is much stiffer than the concrete matrix the uncracked composite material
will be stiffer than an unreinforced concrete section of equivalent size. It is possible to allow for this
by calculating the geometrical properties of a transformed section, where the area of reinforcement is
multiplied by the modular ratio (Esteel/Econcrete-1). If this is done then the effects of cracking,
which reduces stiffness, must also be considered, see below.
Note that axial load in columns increases the area in compression, and so the effect of cracking in
columns will generally be less than in beams.
Note that the value of Econcrete used to determine the transformed section properties will depend on
whether creep effects are being considered. The value used to calculate the section properties should
also be used when defining the material properties.
Cracking
Once part of a concrete member goes into tension, it is likely to crack and the stiffness will then be
reduced. Because the amount of cracking depends on the loads applied, the stiffness of the member
20/44
April 03

will vary with load. This cannot be allowed for in a linear elastic analysis and so, if the most
accurate estimate of deflection possible is needed, an iterative analysis is required, reducing the
element stiffnesses where an initial analysis of uncracked sections shows that cracking would occur.
Stiffness of cracked sections in this case needs to be determined from the moment-curvature
relationship for the section.
Note that it is the stiffness (EI) which needs to be adjusted, and in many cases (including all 2D
element analysis) it is easier to modify E to allow for these effects, instead of changing I (or the
section dimensions from which I is calculated).
Properties for dynamic analysis
Stiffness is important for dynamic analysis and so cracking and reinforcement may need to be
considered, as for a deflection analysis. If loading is applied rapidly to concrete it is stiffer than
when load is applied gradually. The increase in stiffness is of the order of 10% for earthquake or
extreme wind loading and so is generally neglected. Larger increases in stiffness are observed with
low amplitude dynamic loads, in vibration analysis of floor slabs for example. Further details are
given in 'An Arup Introduction to Structural Dynamics' by Mike Willford.
6.3 Steel
Most structural steels can be assumed to behave in a linear, elastic manner up to yield and then to
deform indefinitely at that level of stress, forming a plastic hinge. Analysis of models including
plastic hinges is non linear and outside the scope of this note. For further details on the use of plastic
theory, see Plastic Design to BS5950 by J.M. Davies and B.A. Brown, Blackwell, 1996.
6.4 Composite (steel beam and concrete slab)
Properties for analysis in sagging regions need to be calculated for a transformed section, allowing
for the different modulus of steel and concrete, usually by reducing the effective width of the slab in
the ratio Econcrete/Esteel. Note that in hogging regions the concrete slab will be cracked and will not
therefore contribute significantly to the stiffness of the composite beam. Rules for the proportion of
the span to be taken as cracked are given in design codes. As with concrete structures the effects of
creep on the stiffness of the concrete need to be considered.
6.5 Timber
Timber, as a natural material, has a wider variation in stiffness than manufactured materials. Mean
and minimum values of E are given in the codes. Generally the minimum stiffness value should be
used in a frame analysis and the mean stiffness should only be used where significant load sharing
between members is possible (e.g. floor joists). The effect of timber being stiffer than assumed may
need to be considered.
6.6 Other materials
Typical properties for the materials described below are tabulated (section 11.18) but the following
points need to be considered when modelling these materials:
Wrought Iron
Wrought iron behaves in a similar manner to steel. Further details are given in The Appraisal of
Existing Iron and Steel Structures. (SCI publication 138)
21/44
April 03

Cast Iron
Cast iron is not a linear elastic material. Stiffness reduces as load increases and the tension stiffness
is less than the compression stiffness. Brittle failure under tension occurs at comparatively low
stresses. Providing these features are born in mind a linear elastic analysis can give reasonable
results to use in strength design. For deflection calculation a range of stiffnesses would need to be
considered. . Further details are given in The Appraisal of Existing Iron and Steel Structures. (SCI
publication 138)
Masonry
Masonry is assumed to crack at the joints under tension and so the stiffness of a masonry element
will reduce once the extreme fibre goes into tension.
Aluminium
Aluminium can be treated as a linear elastic material for analysis. Designers should be aware that
there will be significant reduction in strength of the material at any welded connection and this lower
strength will need to be used in design.
7 MODELLING LOADS
7.1 General
It is usually convenient to split the load into a number of loadcases which can then be combined with
appropriate load factors.
7.2 Point of application of load
If only part of a structure is modelled, it may not be possible to apply loads to the model at the same
position as they are applied to the structure. Care is needed to ensure that the eccentricity of load is
considered in this case, particularly for cantilevers.
Sometimes local effects of loading are calculated separately (e.g. wheel load effects on a bridge
deck) and only the global effects are to be determined from the model. In this case it is important
that loads are applied to the model on the primary structure, with any moments resulting from the
eccentricity of loading. Otherwise the results from the global analysis will contain a local component
which will therefore be included twice in the total analysis.
7.3 Self weight
It is possible in many programs to have the self weight calculated automatically from the areas of the
elements and the density of the materials. A number of issues need to be handled carefully if this
approach is adopted:
When modelling a slab using a grillage, this approach will apply twice the total weight of
the slab, unless special precautions are taken (e.g. using two different materials, one with a
density of zero, for longitudinal and transverse elements).
Additional load from stiffeners, connections etc will not be included.
Dummy elements with arbitrary large cross section will generate large loads.
Mixing gravity loads and applied loads in a single loadcase is not recommended, because checking
of loading will be complicated and, especially if any of the problems noted above are present, the
use of applied loads to represent the self weight is generally preferable.
22/44
April 03

7.4 Other permanent loads

Generally other permanent loads will be present in addition to the self weight of the members and
these loads have to be applied explicitly to the model. It is generally best to apply the load to the
model in a similar manner to the way in which loads are applied to the part of the structure which
has been modelled (e.g. on a plane frame: apply purlin loads as point loads, slab loads as distributed
loads).
7.5 Transient loads
The same principle as for permanent loads should be used. Where it is possible for only part of a
load to be applied to the actual structure, (e.g. pattern loading), it is generally preferable to model
each patch as a separate loadcase and use combinations to create the patterns.
7.6 Internal loads
In addition to applied loads, other effects can change the distribution of forces within the structure,
without applying a net force. Many of these effects can be modelled directly but extra care needs to
be taken because the behaviour of the structure under these effects is less easy to check by hand.
Checking the direction of the applied effect can often only be done by looking at the results. It is
recommended that these effects are always modelled in separate loadcases from applied loads and
from each other, to make checking as simple as possible.
Temperature
Unless a structure is free to expand and contract, the effects of a change of temperature need to be
considered. Even if there is no external restraint to expansion, differential temperatures and
temperature gradients across a member can introduce stresses. Care needs to be taken when using a
uniform temperature change because in a number of circumstances spurious locked in stresses
can be generated which can be an order of magnitude higher than the genuine stresses
caused by a restraint to thermal expansion. To avoid this, temperature change must be
applied to all the elements which span directly or partially between restraints (only truly
transverse elements directly orthogonal to the line joining restraints can be omitted).
However if any rigid constraints (including elements modelled with rigid ends) are in parallel
with beams subject to temperature change (eg a grillage with rigid elements over the column
width) they cannot expand and so will lock in stresses (temperature movements/stresses will
also be underestimated if part of the element is rigid). Also if steel and concrete elements
are in parallel (eg concrete slab members in parallel with primary steel beams) then if they
have different coefficients of expansion, this will lock in stresses (which may or may not be
considered spurious).
Lack of fit
If components are not exactly the right length then forces can be generated in those components and
adjacent ones. This cannot usually be quantified at the design stage, and is deemed to be covered by
partial factors, but may need to be considered if there is a problem on site.
Prestress
Prestressing will shorten the members to which it is applied, with similar effects to lack of fit and if
the prestress is eccentric it will also introduce bending to the members. Unless the prestressed
member is simply supported these distortions will introduce secondary stresses into the structure,
which need to be considered, usually by applying equivalent loads to the model (section 11.17)
23/44
April 03

Support settlement
Support settlement is another special case of lack of fit (section 8.4).
8 MODELLING RESTRAINTS
General
All structures are restrained to prevent global movement. If the whole structure is modelled then the
model will normally be restrained where it touches the ground and the only decisions needed are on
the rigidity of the ground. If only part of the structure is modelled however (e.g. a two dimensional
frame which is stabilised by other structure out of plane), additional restraints (section 8.3) to the
model are needed.
Restraint at ground
It is normal practice to assume initially that the ground is rigid and to allow for the effects of support
settlement separately (section 8.4). Modelling the joint between the structure and the ground has the
same problems as for other joints (section 3.3), but BS5950 states that if full fixity to the support is
assumed, then a rotational spring to model flexibility of the ground should be used. A simpler
approach is to analyse the model twice, once assuming pinned supports and once assuming full fixity
and to use the moment from the fixed analysis for the design of the base connection only.
Full fixity should only be assumed if both the connection and the foundation can resist the moments
generated at the support without significant rotation (less than 10% of the rotation of a pinned
member at that location).
The use of rigid supports can produce very different reactions in adjacent supports which would in
practice be evened out by very slight movements. If examination of the reactions shows this effect, a
reanalysis using stiff springs (deflecting say 1mm under maximum reaction) is recommended. The
sensitivity of the analysis to variations in this stiffness should be investigated.
Raft Foundations
Where a large building is supported on a ground slab acting as a raft, the stiffness of the soil, the
stiffness of the raft and the stiffness of the structure above interact. Soil is not an elastic material and
so using springs to represent it can be misleading. An iterative use of a soil displacement program
and a structural analysis program where the spring stiffnesses are adjusted to match the predicted
ground movements is recommended. A check should be made to ensure that any springs which end
up in tension are deleted.
Global restraints
In a general 3 dimensional structure any point has six degrees of freedom, i.e. it can move in 3
directions and rotate about 3 axes.
To simplify models it is possible to specify that every point is restrained in some of these directions.
Such global restraints are selected automatically for some structure types (plane frames and
grillages) where the plane of the structure is defined, but have to be specified by the user for other
types (plane stress etc) where the structure can be in any plane selected by the user.
Support settlement
Differential settlement between supports can significantly affect the forces in a structure. When this
is the result of different foundation conditions in different places it is not directly related to the
magnitude of load and so cannot be modelled by a spring. Generally a maximum magnitude of
differential settlement which might happen is defined and this has to be applied to each support in
turn, using separate loadcases.
24/44
April 03

9 MODELLING FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

The mass of the structure and its contents is fundamental to its dynamic behaviour. Traditionally this
has been modelled by specifying 'lumped masses' at nodes and assuming the model has zero density.
It is now possible in some analysis programs to use the areas of the elements to determine the self
mass, (which has the same disadvantages as using gravity to model self weight section 7.3) and/or to
specify that a particular loadcase should be converted to represent mass.
Because of uncertainties in material and element properties, there is not usually an advantage in
using distributed instead of lumped mass in the analysis and whichever of the options given above is
easiest to input can be used.
The stiffness (section 6.2) of the structure is also fundamental to its dynamic behaviour. Non
structural members like partition walls can significantly affect the stiffness of a structure under low
amplitude dynamic loading.
Further details are given in 'An Arup Introduction to Structural Dynamics' by Mike Willford.
10 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
10.1 Beams and columns
Results from the analysis of the model of a skeletal structure (moment, shear and axial load) can
often be used directly in member design. Exceptions include members where deflection affects the
forces (section 11.3).
Connection design needs to be considered carefully. In steel structures the capacity of the
connection can often govern the design. To provide a connection capable of transferring the full
moment capacity of the member might be impossible without haunching beams or stiffening tubes
local to the connection. Except in the special case of portal frames designed plastically (where it is
important that plastic hinges are formed away from the connection) the saving in weight achieved by
minimising the member size is likely to be outweighed by the extra cost of complex joints.
Stresses derived automatically for beams and columns can give a quick indication of whether
members are grossly oversized or undersized but effects such as buckling mean that they are
unlikely to be used directly for final design.
10.2 Slabs and walls
Results from analysis of a slab or wall, either as a grillage of 1D elements (section 11.6) or a mesh of
2D elements, will generally need to be processed to derive values to use in design.
Stresses in 2D elements which are modelling a uniform material like steel, can be used directly,
provided buckling is not an issue.
Stresses and derived forces in 2D elements modelling reinforced concrete need extensive post
processing to derive design forces.(section 11.2)
11 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
These topics are referred to in the main manual
25/44
April 03

11.1 Warnings and errors during analysis

The three most common problems associated with a stiffness analysis are singularity, instability and
ill-conditioning. The first two problems are easily spotted and can be easily rectified; the third is
more difficult to spot, may sometimes be missed completely and is more difficult to cure. Where
they occur, the model idealisation must be checked and the input data amended accordingly.
Singularity
Singularity occurs when the assembled structural stiffness matrix includes a diagonal term equal to
zero. No solution can be obtained from such a matrix. This is normally due to lack of stiffness at a
joint in a given direction or rotation.
In practical terms, this generally does not imply that the structure is a mechanism but it does mean
that some extra restraints must be applied so that the structure may be solved.
Where torsion is likely to occur in the structure, a torsion constant of some value (even if it is very
small) should be entered to prevent singularity.
Global Instability
Global instability differs from singularity in that all the nodes in the structure have a non-zero
diagonal stiffness term but the structure is not restrained in one or more of its global degrees of
freedom.
Ill-conditioning
Ill-conditioning is a numerical problem that arises during the solution of the stiffness equations, as a
result of very large ratios between terms of the stiffness matrix.
The problem is shown up in practice by the total applied loads at a node (including the fixed-end
components from elements loads) not being equal to the sum of the element end forces of elements
incident at that node. This is immediately apparent at the support nodes. Here the sum of the
reactions in the global degrees of freedom not being equal to the sum of the applied loads in the
corresponding direction is a sure indication of ill-conditioning. For non-support nodes, the problem
is much more difficult to spot, unless the analysis program itself performs the "out-of-balance" check
and warns the user appropriately.
Large differences in the stiffnesses of elements meeting at a node are generally the cause of illconditioned structures; halving the length of an element by inserting an extra node may provide a
solution.
Another general rule is to avoid using relatively very large or small element areas and inertias, and to
either fix or release the nodes attached to the elements instead. Zero areas and inertias will not cause
ill-conditioning but may cause singularity.
Referred to from section 2.5 Computer Analysis
11.2 Concrete Post processing of 2D element results
Because concrete is usually designed as a cracked reinforced section, the stresses calculated from an
elastic analysis of 2D elements cannot be used directly for design. Principal stresses are unlikely to
be parallel to the direction of reinforcement.
A method of converting in plane stresses into areas of reinforcement is described in Structures Note
1989NST_7 and use of a post processor for analysis data which automates this process and can allow
for bending stresses as well is recommended.
26/44
April 03

Use of out of plane shear stresses to derive shear reinforcement is not recommended. These stresses
can be used qualitatively to identify concentrations of shear force but punching shear checks should
be done by hand at successive shear perimeters as described in the standards.
Referred to from sections 3.4 Slabs and 10 - Results.
11.3 P-delta effects
Normal static analysis calculations assume that displacements do not effect the forces in a structure.
If a member carries predominately axial loads then deflection of this member will introduce second
order, or P-delta, effects. For example, in a sway structure, the vertical loads generate moments.
Design codes generally give rules for the design of elements to take account of these effects, such as
by applying notional horizontal loads. In special cases, or where stipulated by the design codes, a
full P-delta analysis to calculate these second order effects directly is required.
There are no general rules for when a P-delta analysis should be carried out. A P-delta analysis
should be considered if:
deflections are large resulting in P-delta moments greater than 10% of the static moment
a structure can sway, and no other methods of allowing for sway have been considered
compressive loads are high, so that buckling involving more than one member might be a
problem
If in this last case a P-delta analysis shows significant differences from a static analysis, a buckling
analysis should also be undertaken to identify the critical buckling load directly.
In a P-delta analysis there is a geometric, or differential, stiffness in addition to the normal structural
stiffness. The geometric stiffness is derived from the forces in the structure, so the solution requires
two passes. The first pass establishes the forces in the structure allowing the geometric stiffness to
be established for the second pass. In a linear static analysis, provided the model is properly
restrained, the structure should always be stable, so a solution is always possible. In a P-delta
analysis this is not necessarily the case. If the axial force in an element is too high the elements may
be unstable so that a solution cannot be found. Note too that since this is no longer a linear analysis,
results from different load cases cannot be superposed.
27/44
April 03

P-delta analyses can be used to avoid using effective lengths derived from code rules, which do not
apply directly to complex structural arrangements. Provided initial imperfections are included in the
model, stresses from the analysis can be used to check an element directly; taking the effective
length as equal to the element length. If a buckling analysis can be undertaken, the initial
imperfections can be determined from the buckled shapes. Normally the deflection of the mode with
the lowest critical load is scaled to an appropriate amplitude. This may be derived from the initial
imperfection ratios used for appropriate elements in the code (see 1996NST_12 for advice to British
and European codes) or be based on construction tolerances. Note that the initial imperfections
make allowance for internal stresses as well as lack of straightness.
Referred to from section 2.5 Computer Analysis, 3.2 Beams and Columns, and 10 - Results
11.4 Modelling castellated beams, trusses etc by shear beams
The shear stiffness of a castellated beam, or of a truss modelled by a single beam element, is
significantly less than for the equivalent solid beam and so shear deformations always need to be
allowed for, even with slender beams.
Suppliers of castellated and perforated beams supply proprietary software or design charts to use for
their beams. The user needs to be satisfied before using such products that they are suitable for the
particular application.
An accurate estimate of shear stiffnesses can be calculated by modelling top and bottom flanges and
web members as beam elements in a plane frame. For scheme design the following rules should give
an adequate approximation.
In these formulae E is the Youngs Modulus and G is the shear modulus, and for an isotropic
material with Poissons ratio :
E / G = 2(1 + )
Beam Type
Castellated Beams
It=I for T section at hole
s = pitch of holes
Vierendeel girders where elements
are slender (element span/depth >
10)
A = pitch of bracing members
b = depth between flanges
If = I for flange member
Ib = I for bracing member
Vierendeel girders where elements
are stocky (element span/depth <
10)
Af = area of flange
Kf = shear factor for flange
Ab = area for bracing member
Kb = shear factor for bracing
member
Bending stiffness
(Isolid + I at hole)/2
Shear area
E / G 192 It
s2
E /G
(I for top and bottom
flanges)
(I for top and bottom

flanges)
28/44
a
ab
+
24 If 12 Ib
2
E /G
a
ab
E /G
E /G
+
+
+
24 If 12 Ib 2 Af Kf 2 Ab Kb
2
April 03

N-truss (pin jointed)

E G cos
= angle of diagonal to horizontal (I for top and bottom
1
sin
flanges)
Ad = area of diagonal
+
2
Ad sin
Av
Av = area of vertical
Warren Truss (pin jointed)
E G 2 sin 2 cos
= angle of diagonal to horizontal (I for top and
1
1
Adc = area of compression diagonal bottom flanges)
+
Adc Adt
Adt = area of tension diagonal
Referred to from section 3.2 - Beams and Columns
29/44
April 03

11.5 Modelling beams with long slots
Shear deflections in a member with a long slot will dominate. Two possible models are suggested.
The solid sections are modelled in the normal way. The ends of these sections are then rigidly linked
to nodes at the centroids of the sections above and below the slots and the slotted section is modelled
by two elements.
The solid sections are modelled in the normal way. The slotted section is modelled as a beam with
reduced shear area as follows:
I for top and bottom sections about common
centroid.
Bending stiffness:
E/G
a
a
E /G
E /G
+
+
+
48 It 48 Ib 4 At Kt 4 Ab Kb
Shear area: where a = slot length

A = area, I = inertia, K = shear factor
for top (t) and bottom (b) sections
Referred to from section 3.2 Beams and Columns

11.6 Grillage analogy for slabs
A slab can be modelled by a grillage of 1D elements and this is generally appropriate where there are
no in plane forces in the slab, or where the slab incorporates downstand beams. The longitudinal and
transverse elements in the grillage should be given the axial and bending properties of the section of
slab they represent. The torsional stiffness derived for the 1D element representing the slab (or the
slab portion of an element representing a beam and part of the slab) must be halved, because both
sets of elements contribute to the total torsional stiffness of the slab. (this sets the torsional stiffness
GJ equal to the bending stiffness EI). Further guidance is given in CIRIA Report 110 and in 'Bridge
Deck Behaviour' by E.C. Hambly (Spon, 1991).
The results for a grillage consist of moments, shears and torsions. The bending moment diagram for
a line of elements has a 'saw tooth' appearance because of the torsional moments in the perpendicular
elements. This is a result of using discrete elements to represent the continuous slab but simply
averaging the moments either side of a node will ignore the torsion stresses which is incorrect and
unsafe. It is simplest and conservative, to add the average torsion per metre width in the four
elements meeting at a point to the averaged moment. For more details on this and dealing with edge
elements, see Structures Note 1991NST_16.
Referred to from sections 3.4 Slabs and Walls, 5 Section Properties and 10 - Results
30/44
April 03

11.7 Setting up a model with 2D elements
Models using 2D elements have to be set up with great care if meaningful answers are to be
obtained. The user must understand the fundamental difference between a 1D element and a
2D element.
A 1D element is formulated to obey linear elastic beam theory, and so a single 1D element
can be used to model a complete span, and will give answers which correspond exactly with
beam theory. A 2D bending element on the other hand can be formulated in many different
ways, and assumptions are made in these formulations about the relationship between out of
plane displacements and rotations which mean that the results only approximate to those
derived from plate bending theory.
Different 2D elements can be used to model different effects. Elements in a 3D structure
can model plane stress (in plane) and/or plate bending (out of plane) effects. Axisymmetric
or plane strain elements can only be used in 2D models.
2D elements can have nodes at corners only (linear elements), or additional nodes along the
sides (parabolic elements). Generally a parabolic element will give better answers for a
given size of mesh, but linear elements can allow a finer mesh to be used without exceeding
the capacity of the program.
The ideal 2D element is a square, and the further the shape departs from this the less
accurate the answers will be.
The mesh of 2D elements in a model needs to be sufficiently small to ensure that the state of
stress does not vary dramatically over the length of an element. For plate bending, typically
eight elements would be needed to model a single span to give a sufficiently accurate model
of the behaviour of a slab. For in plane stresses the mesh needs to be refined locally near
stress concentrations to give acceptable answers, and a coarse mesh is likely to overestimate
the stiffness of the element. Discontinuities of stress across element boundaries indicate that
a plane stress model mesh needs refining. If less detailed models are to be used then simple
test models which can be compared to hand calculations or a 1D element model should be
analysed first to determine the likely accuracy to be obtained from the main model.
Compatibility between 1D and 2D elements needs to be considered carefully when they are
used in the same model. In particular if a 1D element is connected at one end to a node on
the edge of a plane of 2D elements, and the 1D element lies in this plane, this is equivalent
to pinning the 1D element to the 2D elements.
Remember that 2D elements are only connected at nodes, and so trapezoidal elements need
to be used for mesh refinement.
31/44
April 03

Referred to from section 3.4 - Slabs
11.8 Axis systems and element orientation
An axis system consists of three axes in orthogonal directions. These are usually righthanded axes systems:
Positive rotations about those axes follow the Right Hand Screw rule:
The fundamental axis system is the global Cartesian coordinate system. All other coordinate
systems are defined relative to it.
Each element is oriented relative to an axis system defined by its topology. Typically the
default element x-axis runs from end 1 to end 2 of the element, and the default element zaxis is in a vertical plane. If a member is not orientated in this way in the structure the user
must define its orientation in the model. Details of how to do this will be given in the
program manual.
x
Z
Z
z'
x
2
y'
1
Y
Referred to from section 5 Section Properties
32/44
April 03

11.9 Section properties for standard shapes

To derive section properties from first principles the properties of standard shapes are needed. Such
properties are given in textbooks and in documents like the Steel Designers Handbook, but some of
the most common are given below:
Section
Solid Rectangle b > d
Area
bd
Inertia
Torsion Constant
1 bd
12
Solid Circle,
d2
d4
4
64
diameter d
Referred to in section 11.12 Section properties
d 4 4
3.36 d
b
1
b d3 1
3 16 b
12
or b d 3 3 for thin rectangles
d4
32
11.10 Multi storey frame models

A number of tools have been developed to assist in the analysis of multi storey frame models, either
by allowing simple chassis models to be expanded to model a complete building, or to develop
equivalent simple models during scheming or verification. Papers on these tools are held in R&D
who can also suggest contact names for further information.
Referred to from section 3.4 Slabs and Walls and 4.1 Multistorey Buildings
11.11 Modelling bridge decks
Bridge decks generally have clearly identifiable primary members spanning in one direction,
supporting secondary members or a deck spanning in the other direction. Because bridges support
moving concentrated loads, many loadcases are needed and so it is often beneficial to use
comparatively crude skeletal models to model the slab decks. Influence lines can be used to identify
worst locations for the application of load. If a distortion to an element in a skeletal model is
applied, the deflected form of the model illustrates the influence line (or influence surface in 2D).
Local effects of wheel loads on slabs are often calculated from influence charts rather than computer
analysis. In this case loads on an analysis model should be applied to the primary structure to keep
global and local effects separate.
Details of methods of modelling different deck types are given in 'Bridge Deck Behaviour' by E.C.
Hambly (Spon, 1991) and this book should be consulted for details.
Referred to from section 4.6 Bridge Decks
33/44
April 03

11.12 Section properties from first principles

Second moment of area (Iyy, Izz)
Complex cross sections can be divided up in to simple shapes. For each shape find the position of its
own centroid, y, the area, A, and I for the shape about its own centroid (section 11.9).
A y
A
The position of the centroid of the whole

section is then:
y=
The total second moment of the

section is then:
Itot = I + A y y
Torsion Constant, (J)

There is no equivalent set of rules for deriving torsion constants from first principles by adding
components. Two examples illustrate this:
A tube with a longitudinal slot has a fraction of the torsion stiffness of an identical closed
tube.
Open sections can be considered as a set of simpler shapes but the way a section is split into
component parts can have a marked affect.
The following questions need to be considered:
Is it a thin walled closed section? If so use the formula:
J=
4 A2
(ds t )
Is it a thin walled open section? If so treat it as a series of rectangles and use the formula:
J = 1 / 3 ds t 3
For thick walled sections more detailed guidance is given in Roark. Open sections should be split
into rectangles, starting with the rectangle with the largest d * t ^3 that can be fitted within the
complete section.
For thick walled closed sections, where the hole dimensions are less than half the dimensions of the
solid rectangle containing it, the hole can be ignored and the section treated as solid.
Referred to from section 5 Section Properties

11.13 Modelling haunched beams
The variation in stiffness along the length of a haunched or tapered beam can have a substantial
effect on the distribution of forces and magnitude of deflections. It should be borne in mind that
minor differences in stiffness due to haunching can have less effect than some of the other
assumptions made during modelling (e.g. using gross uncracked section properties for concrete).
Variations in depth of +/- 25% can generally be ignored. With greater variation in depth a haunched
beam can be modelled by three elements, one representing each haunch, with I taken as the average
of the support and span values (not the properties of an average depth section) and the middle one
with the constant midspan section properties.
Referred to from section 3.2 Beams and Columns
34/44
April 03

11.14 Modelling elements with rigid ends
Where members of substantially different stiffness are connected, for example where a
coupling beam connects parts of a shear wall, an element connecting the centrelines of the
shear walls will be too flexible. Assuming full fixity at the face of the shear wall would
overestimate the stiffness, and so it is generally assumed that full fixity occurs at h/2 from
the face, where h is the depth of the flexible member.
Such a member can be modelled as a single element by increasing its stiffness. Determine
the fraction N of the length which is flexible, then increase the stiffness by 1 3
N
Alternatively the element can be modelled with rigid ends if the program allows this.
Modelling the rigid sections by stiff elements is not recommended.
Referred to from section 3.3 Joints, and 3.4 Slabs and Walls
11.15 Modelling beam and slab floors with in plane stresses
The 'best' analytical model of the behaviour of a beam and slab floor under combined bending and in
plane stress is a model where in plane forces are carried by plane stress elements and out of plane
forces are carried by a grillage of elements with no in plane stiffness and reduced axial stiffness
(modelling the part of the beam outside the slab depth only). However a model in this form produces
answers which are very difficult to convert into reinforcement areas. For straightforward shapes a
simple grillage (section 11.6), gives in plane deflections which only differ from the 'correct' answers
by about 20%. In plane bending moments in the grillage elements generally cancel at nodes and can
be ignored but axial forces need to be considered.
If the slab is a complex shape or has many large holes in it then a plane stress analysis, neglecting in
plane stiffness of the beams, (or the combined plane stress and grillage model described above)
should be used to establish the behaviour of the slab under in plane loading. Unless this model
identifies high in plane compressive stresses (greater than 0.2 fcu), or the depth of concrete in
compression needed to resist bending in the beam elements exceeds 0.2d, it will be conservative to
add the area of tensile reinforcement calculated from post processing the in plane stresses to the area
of tensile reinforcement needed to resist bending in the beams. If these limits on compression are not
satisfied then specialist help to determine reinforcement areas should be sought.
Referred to from section 3.4.8 Basement Floor Slabs
35/44
April 03

11.16 Symmetrical and anti-symmetrical models
Where only part of a symmetrical model can be included in an analysis because of limits on problem
size which can be analysed by a particular program, only a half or a quarter of the structure needs to
be modelled. Two different models, with different support conditions on the axes of symmetry need
to be analysed, one used for symmetric loading and one for antisymmetric loading.
Any load to be applied to the model can be split into symmetric and antisymmetric components.
Support conditions for axes of symmetry in a plane frame are illustrated below:
Symmetric loading
Anti-symmetric loading
Referred to from section 4.3 Symmetrical Structures
36/44
April 03

11.17 Equivalent loads for prestressing
Prestressing a concrete beam imposes a set of loads on the beam which are in equilibrium. If the
beam is simply supported it will distort under these forces without restraint but this distortion is
prevented in continuous beams and secondary forces are generated. To determine the magnitude of
these forces, a set of equivalent loads can be applied to the beam to model the effect of prestress. For
the simplest case of a straight tendon in a constant section beam these forces will be applied at the
ends of the tendon only. If the tendon follows a parabolic curve then in addition to the end forces a
vertical uniformly distributed load is applied to the beam. If the position of the centroid of the beam
section varies then additional forces are applied. The forces to be applied are summarised in the
figure.
Referred to from section 7.6 Internal Loads
11.18 Properties of standard materials

Basic ranges of properties for commonly used structural materials are given in the table below.
These are based on data taken from relevant UK design standards and reference should be made to
the relevant standards for prescribed values to be used when stiffness is critical.
Material
Steel
Concrete (short
term)
Timber
Wrought Iron
Cast Iron
Aluminium
Poisson's Ratio
Density
kN/mm
200-210
0.3
kg/m
7850
Coefficient of
thermal expansion
strain / degree C
12e-6
20 + 0.2 fcu
0.2
2400
10e-6
N/A (4 - 7)
290 - 1080
0.25
0.25
0.3
7850
7850
2710
Young's Modulus
4 - 20 //
0.2-1.3 # grain
150-220
60-100
70
12e-6
12e-6
23e-6
Notes
37/44
April 03

Concrete properties are modified by creep under sustained loading, reducing the Young's modulus
by a factor of 2 to 3. Further details on concrete properties are given in BS8110 Part 2. Properties
for concrete in other countries (eg Hong Kong) are different.
Timber properties are defined in EN 338 1995 Table 1.
Referred to from section 6 Material Properties
11.19 Holes in concrete beams (previously SGN 4.6)
INTRODUCTION
This Note describes a simple method for local analysis and detailed design around holes within the
webs of reinforced concrete beams and ribs. It should not be applied to holes in prestressed or deep
r.c. beams. (The latter are treated in the CIRIA design guide1 on deep beams.)
No attempt is made to distinguish between holes that are structurally insignificant, and those that
require design consideration. The distinction is influenced by a variety of factors including the size
and location of the hole relative to both the depth and the span of the beam. The designer's own
experience is a more reliable guide than arbitrary limits on size, although it can be said that any hole
of length greater than nominal link spacing or depth greater than one-quarter the beam depth will
certainly need to be investigated. If doubt exists with smaller holes, they should be checked.
BASIS
The presence of a rectangular hole is assumed to change the behaviour of the beam or rib such that it
acts locally as a Vierendeel frame. (Obviously if there are multiple holes at close spacing or if the
hole dimensions are large in relation to the beam depth or span, the behaviour of the beam will be
altered more radically, and a rigorous overall analysis may then be needed before local effects are
considered.)
Holes of non-rectangular profile may be very conservatively simulated as a rectangular hole

enclosing the extreme limits of the actual profile. But where the hole is of a shape that allows the
beam to be simulated locally as a single or double lattice truss, having top and bottom booms and
'diagonals' which can be reinforced to carry loads across the hole, then it is both more realistic
modelling and almost certainly more economical on reinforcement to adopt this truss analogy. Such
an approach can be used when the hole is triangular, circular, or of a shape that can be inscribed
38/44
April 03

within an equivalent circle, but it should be limited to cases where the truss members framing the
hole can be sized to have coincident centre-lines at 'joints' (thereby avoiding the need for a detailed
analysis of local bending and force transfer at the joint). It must also be possible for diagonal bars
trimming the hole to be bent alongside and lapped with the top and bottom reinforcement.
In practice these considerations will restrict the use of the truss analogy method to circular holes
whose diameter is at most no more than one-third, and triangular holes whose height or length is no
more than two-thirds, of the overall beam depth. Even these limits may be too generous for holes in
shallow beams or those near the top or bottom of the beam.
The term 'truss' is used to describe the analogy for modelling force transfer across the hole and, in
practice, the analysis may well - for simplicity of working - assume that members are skeletal and
pin-jointed. While this will give a 'safe' estimate of the axial forces to be designed for, it must be
remembered that they are, in reality, squat members with monolithic joints, and detailing must take
account of this.
Forces are assumed to be transmitted across the hole as follows:
Overall bending of the beam - by equal compression and tension forces having a lever arm which is
the distance between the centroid of the concrete section in compression and the main tensile steel
centroid
39/44
April 03

Vertical shear - rectangular hole, Vierendeel frame analogy: by shear and local bending across the
hole. The distribution of shear between the concrete boom sections is dependent on the relative
stiffnesses of the sections and on the effective span of these between notional points of fixity, which
should be at least one-half the overall depth of the boom beyond the extreme end of the hole.
An applied vertical shear acting on a beam is carried across a rectangular hole by local shearing and
bending of the boom sections. The distribution of shear between the booms can be determined from
the assumption that the deflections of the booms across a hole are equal.
An initial distribution can thus be made in proportion to the relative I values of the cross concrete
sections (assumed uncracked): this will give a safe estimate of shear in the tension boom - which
will probably be cracked - but may underestimate that in the largely or wholly uncracked
compression boom. This can, conservatively, be designed to carry 100% of the shear; if that leads to
unacceptably high stresses, the boom I values should be re-calculated allowing for long-term tension
stiffening in concrete (as recommended in CP110) and an estimated percentage of tension steel.
The design shear on the tension boom should, however, not be reduced from its initially estimated
value; the total shear designed for in the two booms will thus exceed the actual value, but this is a
40/44
April 03

conservative approach to a difficult analysis which - if it underestimated shears drastically - could

have equally drastic consequences.
Vertical shear - triangular or circular hole, truss analogy: by components of compression and
tension in the actual or notional diagonal sections adjacent to the hole and by shear across the joints
where these intersect. The boom section spanning between the further ends of the diagonals may be
assumed to carry only a nominal shear;
Local bending (due to loading applied to a boom section above or below the hole) - by bending of
the section assuming beam action between fixity points (Vierendeel frame) or joints (truss analogy)
adopted when assessing vertical shear transmission. Note that such loads can result in local tensions
at boom ends which require extra tension steel to prevent tearing-out;
Axial force (if present) - by axial forces across the reduced concrete boom sections. The applied
axial force can usually be taken to act at the centroid of the gross concrete beam cross-section and
can be shared between the top and bottom boom sections by simple statics (analogous to the sharing
of load effects from a concentrated load on a simply supported beam, with the 'support' locations
taken as the centroids of the gross concrete boom sections.
41/44
April 03

Note, however, that the local behaviour of a beam subject to a large axial force is similar to that of a
deep beam on its side and a detailed investigation of the stresses and strains - e.g. by finite element
analysis - may, in this case, be essential (but this is outside the scope of this Note);
Torsion (if present) - by shear forces of opposite sign acting as a couple having a lever arm which is
the distance between the centroids of the concrete boom sections, and by local lateral bending of
these sections. Points of fixity are assumed at a distance beyond the extreme end face of the hole
equal to one-half of the respective section width: a point of contraflexure will occur at the midspan
of the section.
With a flanged beam, it is necessary to assess what flange width is to be considered as effective
when defining the boom section. If the flange is in tension, it seems reasonable to take only the web
or rib width into account. The same width should be assumed when considering vertical shear where
the flange is in compression, while a greater width (suggested as the web width plus at least twice
the slab depth) should be taken when bending, axial force, and torsion are being considered.
42/44
April 03

METHOD
The method can be divided into four stages.
1.
Establish the analysis model at the hole
- Decide whether the hole is to be analyzed as an actual or equivalent rectangle by Vierendeel
frame model, or as a triangle or circle using truss analogy
- Sketch (to scale preferably) the actual or equivalent hole shape, and locate the centre-lines of the
top and bottom boom sections (at the centroids of the gross concrete section), and of actual or
notional diagonal sections if present (choosing a realistic breadth of section, related to the forces to
be carried and the probable size of reinforcement cage to be used)
2. Establish externally-applied forces on beam and calculate corresponding local forces acting
around hole
- Determine the components of local forces due to each external force in turn, as described above
3. Check and design sections to resist local forces acting around hole
- Assemble envelope of local forces on sections due to 'worst case' combination(s) of external
forces
- Check that sections can resist the individual and combined local forces including axial
tension/compression, bending, and shear
- Carry out detailed section design
- Check section sizes adequate, allowing for cover, bars, space for concreting, etc.
- IF SECTION INADEQUATE THEN EITHER REDUCE HOLE SIZE, INCREASE SECTION
DIMENSIONS, OR ANALYZE MORE RIGOROUSLY
4. Prepare detailing instructions
General
- Check that detailed design satisfies durability and fire resistance needs (e.g. cover and fabric
reinforcement)
- Comply with relevant Detailing Manual2 recommendations for the beam or rib generally
Main Steel
- Check that all 'opening' re-entrant corners are reinforced with suitably anchored main bars along
both faces
- Provide crack control bars along all faces of the hole
Links
- Provide designed links where called for in booms (nominal links otherwise)
43/44
April 03

- Provide hanger bars (e.g. additional vertical links) to resist tensions due to local loading on the
boom sections and shear at boom ends
- Comply with recommended maximum spacing of links both laterally and longitudinally in
relation to effective depth of reduced sections and diameter of longitudinal bars in compression
Bends, Anchorages, and Laps
- Ensure that longitudinal bars have adequate tension/compression anchorage beyond points of
assumed fixity, and that diagonal bars are adequately lapped with longitudinal bars - sketch if
necessary to ensure there is sufficient room
- Specify 'slow' bends if needed for diagonal bars
Buildability
- Finally ensure e.g. by sketching that the details allow enough space for concrete to be placed.
Referred to from section 3.2. Beams and Columns
12 REVISION HISTORY
Revision A
April 2003
Section 3.2 refers to new section 11.19 instead of SGN 4.6

Section 3.3 new sentence on rigid constraints and dilation of 2D elements
Section 7.6 new sentences on possible problems with temperature and rigid links
Section 11.7 new paragraph on 1D to 2D connection
Section 11.19 new section incorporating SGN 4.6
44/44
April 03

Structural Modelling Manual by ARUP

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Structural Modelling Manual by ARUP

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Structural Guidance Note 3.

STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE NOTE 3.5 REV A

Modelling Specific Structural Members

Modelling Specific Structure Types

Member section properties

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Other permanent loads

Modelling for dynamic analysis

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

2.2 Modelling procedure

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

2.5 Computer Analysis

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

2.7 Using the results

A beam or column, with a length

A slab, wall or plate, with a

A solid, with significant

Divisions between these categories are not always clear cut.

A two dimensional element,

A three dimensional element,

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Members of uniform straight cross section

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Members of non uniform straight section

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Joints in Concrete frames

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Joints in steel frames

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

4 MODELLING SPECIFIC STRUCTURE TYPES

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

4.5 Cylindrical structures

5 MEMBER SECTION PROPERTIES

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

7.4 Other permanent loads

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

9 MODELLING FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

These topics are referred to in the main manual

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

11.1 Warnings and errors during analysis

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

11.3 P-delta effects

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

(I for top and bottom

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

N-truss (pin jointed)

Referred to from section 3.2 - Beams and Columns

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a

11.5 Modelling beams with long slots

Shear area: where a = slot length

Referred to from section 3.2 Beams and Columns

Structural Guidance Note 3.5a