A structure consists of I-profile simply supported beam. The axial rotation φx is restricted on the both ends but the cross-section is free to warp (fork support). The beam has an initial imperfection in Y-direction defined as a parabolic curve with maximum displacement 30 mm in the middle. Uniform loading is applied in the middle of the top flange of I-profile. The problem is described by the following set of parameters. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
A structure is consisted of an I-section beam and two tube trusses. The structure contains several imperfections and it is loaded by the force Fz. The self-weight is neglected in this example. Determine the deflections uy and uz and axial rotation φx at the endpoint (Point 4). The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
In this verification example the punching shear resistance of an inner column of a flat slab is examined. The column has a circular secton with a 30cm diameter.
A collar beam roof with the selected geometry is compared in terms of its internal forces between the calculation using RFEM 6 and the manual calculation. In total, three load systems are analyzed.
This example compares the effective lengths and critical load factor, which can be calculated in RFEM 6 using the Structure Stability add-on, with a manual calculation. The structural system is a rigid frame with two additional hinged columns. This column is loaded by vertical concentrated loads.
A reinforced concrete beam is designed as a two-span beam with a cantilever. The cross-section varies along the length of the cantilever (tapered cross-section). The internal forces, the required longitudinal and shear reinforcement for the ultimate limit state are calculated.
In this verification example, the capacity design values of shear forces on beams are calculated in accordance with EN 1998-1, 5.4.2.2 and 5.5.2.1 as well as the capacity design values of columns in flexure in accordance with 5.2.3.3(2). The system consists of a two span reinforced concrete beam with a span length of 5.50m. The beam is part of a frame system. The results obtained are compared with those in [1].
In this example, the shear at the interface between concrete cast at different times and the corresponding reinforcement are determined according to DIN EN 1992-1-1. The obtained results with RFEM 6 will be compared to the hand calculation below.
The axial rotation of the I-profile is restricted on the both ends by means of the fork supports (warping is not restricted). The structure is loaded by two transverse forces in its middle. The self-weight is neglected in this example. Determine the maximum deflections of the structure uy,max and uz,max, maximum rotation φx,max, maximum bending moments My,max and Mz,max and maximum torsional moments MT,max, MTpri,max, MTsec,max and Mω,max. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
A member with the given boundary conditions is loaded by torsional moment and axial force. Neglecting its self-weight, determine the beam's maximum torsional deformation as well as its inner torsional moment, defined as the sum of a primary torsional moment and torsional moment caused by the normal force. Provide a comparison of those values while assuming or neglecting the influence of the normal force. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
A thin-walled cantilever of a QRO-profile is fully fixed on the left end and warping is free. The cantilever is subjected to torque. Small deformations are considered, and the self-weight is neglected. Determine the maximum rotation, primary moment, secondary moment, and warping moment. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
An inner column in the first floor of a three-story building is designed. The column is monolithic connected with the top and bottom beams. The fire design simplified method A for columns according to EC2-1-2 is than proofed and the results compared to [1].
A beam is fully fixed (warping is restricted) on the left end and supported by a fork support (free warping) on the right end. The beam is subjected to a torque, longitudinal force, and transverse force. Determine the behavior of the primary torsional moment, secondary torsional moment and warping moment. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe (see reference).
A cantilever of I-profile is supported on the left end and it is loaded by the torque M. The aim of this example is to compare the fixed support with the fork support and to investigate the behaviour of some representative quantities. The comparison with the solution by means of plates is also made. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
In the current validation example, we investigate wind pressure coefficient (Cp) for both main structural members (Cp,ave) and secondary structural members such as cladding or façade systems (Cp,local) based on NBC 2020 [1] and
Japanese Wind Tunnel Data Base
for low-rise building with 45 degree slope. The recommended setting for three-dimensional flat roof with sharp eaves will be described in the next part.
A structure made of I-profile is fully fixed on the left end and embedded into the sliding support on the right end. The structure consists of two segments. The self-weight is neglected in this example. Determine the maximum deflection of the structure uz,max, the bending moment My on the fixed end, the rotation &svarphi;2,y of the segment 2 and the reaction force RBz by means of the geometrically linear analysis and the second-order analysis. The verification example is based on the example introduced by Gensichen and Lumpe.
In the current validation example, we investigate wind pressure value for both general structural design (Cp,10) and local structural design such as cladding or façade systems (Cp,1) based on EN 1991-1-4 flat roof example [1] and
Japanese Wind Tunnel Data Base
. The recommended setting for three-dimensional flat roof with sharp eaves will be described in the next part.
In the current validation example, we investigate wind pressure coefficient (Cp) of flat roof and walls with ASCE7-22 [1]. In the section 28.3 (Wind loads - main wind force resisting system) and Figure 28.3-1 (load case 1), there is a table which shows Cp value for different roof angle.
The model is based on the example 4 of [1]: Point-supported slab.
The flat slab of an office building with crack-sensitive lightweight walls is to be designed. Inner, border and corner panels are to be investigated. The columns and the flat slab are monolithically joined. The edge and corner columns are placed flush with the edge of the slab. The axes of the columns form a square grid. It is a rigid system (building stiffened with shear walls).
The office building has 5 floors with a floor height of 3.000 m. The environmental conditions to be assumed are defined as "closed interior spaces". There are predominantly static actions.
The focus of this example is to determine the slab moments and the required reinforcement above the columns under full load.
The model is based on the example 4 of [1]: Point-supported slab. The internal forces and the required longitudinal reinforcement can be found the in verification example 1022. In this example, punching is examined in the axis B/2.
The Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) has presented a number of well-known benchmark scenarios of wind simulation. The following article deals with "Case E – Building Complex in Actual Urban Area with Dense Concentration of Low-Rise Buildings in Niigata City". In the following, the described scenario is simulated in RWIND 2 and the results are compared with the simulated and experimental results by AIJ.
In the current validation example, we investigate wind pressure value for both general structural designs (Cp,10) and cladding or façade design (Cp,1) of rectangular plan buildings with EN 1991-1-4 [1]. There are three dimensional cases that we will explain more about if in the next part.
The Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) has presented a number of well-known benchmark scenarios of wind simulation. This model deals with "Case A – High-Rise Building with 2:1:1 Shape". In the following text, the described scenario is simulated in RWIND 2 and the results are compared with the simulated and experimental results by the AIJ.
The Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) has presented a number of well-known benchmark scenarios of wind simulation. The following article deals with "Case D – High-Rise Building Among City Blocks". In the following, the described scenario is simulated in RWIND 2 and the results are compared with the simulated and experimental results by the AIJ.
In the current validation example, we investigate wind force coefficient (Cf) of cube shapes with EN 1991-1-4 [1]. There are three dimensional cases that we will explain more about if in the next part.
The available standards, such as EN 1991-1-4 [1], ASCE/SEI 7-16, and NBC 2015 presented wind load parameters such as wind pressure coefficient (Cp) for basic shapes. The important point is how to calculate wind load parameters faster and more accurately rather than working on time-consuming as well as sometimes complicated formulas in standards.
Determine the maximum deflection and maximum radial moment of a simply supported circular plate subjected to uniform pressure, uniform temperature, and differential temperature.
A thin plate is fixed on one side and loaded by means of distributed torque on the other side. First, the plate is modeled as a planar plate. Furthermore, the plate is modeled as one-fourth of the cylinder surface. The width of the planar model is equal to the length of one-fourth of the circumference of the curved model. The curved model thus has almost equal torsional constant to the planar model.
A Z-Section Cantilever is fully fixed at the end and loaded by a torque which, in the case of a shell model, is represented by a couple of shear forces. Determine the axial stress at point A (at mid-surface). The problem is defined according to The Standard NAFEMS Benchmarks.