Skip to main content

Steel Structures Verification Studies

This article summarises the verification studies of the steel beam and column module. The calculation core was first developed in an independent test application using the code formulas, and then every quantity reflected in the report was compared with hand calculations. The end-to-end workflow (open file → analysis → report) and bilingual report generation were also checked. For the formulas see Theoretical Basis of Steel Design.

1. Test model​

MemberSection / materialParameters
BeamIPE A 100, S235Lb = 6000 mm (automatic = member length), Cb from the moment diagram, deflection K = 300
ColumnIPE A 100, S235KLx = KLy = 3000 mm (storey height, K = 1)

IPE A 100 catalogue values: A = 880 mm², Ix = 1.41×10⁶ mm⁴, Iy = 1.31×10⁵ mm⁴, Sx = 28,800 mm³, Zx = 33,000 mm³, Zy = 7,500 mm³, Sy = 4,770 mm³, J = 7,700 mm⁴, Cw = 2.8×10⁸ mm⁶, h = 98, b = 55, tw = 3.6, tf = 4.7 mm. The value E = 2.1×10⁶ kg/cm² in the material library is used as 205,940 MPa.

note

Using IPE A 100 as a column with KL/r = 246 is not a realistic design but a deliberate limit scenario: in a single model it tests that the elastic buckling branch, the KL/r > 200 warning and the small capacity values pass correctly through the report chain.

2. Beam verification (elastic lateral–torsional buckling region)​

QuantityStatiCAD reportHand calculationStatus
Section propertiesA = 8.8 cm², Ix = 141 cm⁴, Wel = 28.8 cm³, Wpl = 33.0 cm³, ry = 1.22 cmUnit conversion of the catalogue valuesExact
Lp64 cm1.76·12.2·√(205940/235) = 636 mmExact
Lr283 cmrts = 14.5 mm; J·c/(Sx·h0) = 0.002866; Lr = 2833 mmExact
Limit stateElastic lateral–torsional bucklingLb = 600 > Lr = 283 cm → elastic regionConsistent
Cb1.931.6G+Q station moments: Mmax = 0.3711, MA = 0.0469, MB = 0.2210, MC = 0.1512 kNm; 12.5·0.3711/(2.5·0.3711 + 3·0.0469 + 4·0.2210 + 3·0.1512) = 1.928Exact
Mn4.13 kNmLb/rts = 413.8; Fcr (Cb = 1) = 74.4 MPa; Mn = 1.928·74.4·28,800 = 4.132 kNmExact
Vn49.74 kN0.6·235·(98·3.6) = 49.75 kN (Cv1 = 1)Exact
Deflectionf = 0.47 cm ≤ L/300 = 2.00 cm5/48·3670·600²/(2.1×10⁶·141) = 0.465 cmExact

3. Verification of the Lb and Cb rules​

In a model of IPE 300 (S235) beams (G = 1000 kg/m + Q = 500 kg/m distributed load), four different support cases were compared with an independent calculation working with the finite element station moments:

BeamLb / Cbφb·Mn (StatiCAD)Independent calculation
3 m cantilever3000 mm / 1.000117.51 kNm117.51 kNm
6 m secondary beam (both ends framing into the mid-spans of main beams)6000 mm / 1.13690.65 kNm90.65 kNm
6 m simply supported (both ends pinned)6000 mm / 1.13690.65 kNm90.65 kNm
6 m rigid-ended6000 mm / 1.15792.26 kNm92.26 kNm

Selection of the governing combination: When the simply supported beam is loaded with G as a point load at mid-span and Q as a distributed load, the largest moment is given by the 1.6G+Q combination (105.54 kNm, Cb = 1.260, demand/capacity ratio 1.050). The governing combination, however, is 1.2G+1.6Q (103.59 kNm, Cb = 1.229, ratio 1.057). The program and the independent calculation give the same combination and the same values; for all beams the difference is smaller than 10⁻¹² kNm.

4. Column verification (elastic flexural buckling)​

QuantityStatiCAD reportHand calculationStatus
rx, ry4.00 cm, 1.22 cm√(I/A): 40.0 mm, 12.2 mmExact
Largest KL/r245.9 and “KL/r>200!” warning3000/12.2 = 245.9 > 200Exact
Governing modey-axis flexural bucklingFey = 33.6 < Fex ≈ 361 < Fez ≈ 437 MPaConsistent
φcPn23.36 kNFey = 33.6 MPa; Fy/Fe = 6.99 > 2.25 → Fcr = 29.5 MPa; Pn = 25.96 kN; φcPn = 23.36 kNExact
φMny (weak axis)1.59 kNm0.9·min(235·7500; 1.6·235·4770) = 1.586 kNmExact
InteractionEq. 11.3b = 0.092, UYGUNPr/Pc = 0.024 < 0.2 → 11.3b; 0.090 with rounded valuesConsistent (rounding)

5. Evaluation​

tip

All quantities of the beam and column chain reflected in the report agree exactly with the hand calculations. Printing the intermediate quantities (Lp, Lr, Cb, KL/r, limit state, governing combination) next to the result in the report allows the engineer to check every result easily.

note

It is essential that all results produced by the software are checked by the responsible engineer.