Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: ETABS

INTRODUCTION
This manual provides example problems used to test various features and capabilities of
the ETABS program. Users should supplement these examples as necessary for verifying
their particular application of the software.

METHODOLOGY
A series of test problems, or examples, designed to test the various elements and analysis
features of the program were created. For each example, this manual contains a short
description of the problem; a list of significant ETABS options tested; and a comparison of
key results with theoretical results or results from other computer programs. The
comparison of the ETABS results with results obtained from independent sources is
provided in tabular form as part of each example.

To validate and verify ETABS results, the test problems were run on a PC platform that
was a Dell machine with a Pentium III processor and 512 MB of RAM operating on a
Windows XP operating system.

Acceptance Criteria
The comparison of the ETABS validation and verification example results with
independent results is typically characterized in one of the following three ways.

Exact: There is no difference between the ETABS results and the independent results
within the larger of the accuracy of the typical ETABS output and the accuracy of the
independent result.

Acceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference between the
ETABS results and the independent results does not exceed five percent (5%). For internal
force and stress values, the difference between the ETABS results and the independent
results does not exceed ten percent (10%). For experimental values, the difference between
the ETABS results and the independent results does not exceed twenty five percent (25%).

Unacceptable: For force, moment and displacement values, the difference between the
ETABS results and the independent results exceeds five percent (5%). For internal force
and stress values, the difference between the ETABS results and the independent results
exceeds ten percent (10%). For experimental values, the difference between the ETABS
results and the independent results exceeds twenty five percent (25%).

The percentage difference between results is typically calculated using the following
formula:

 ETABS Result 
Percent Difference  100   1
 Independent Result 

INTRODUCTION 1
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6

For examples with multiple versions of meshing density of area elements, only the models
with the finest meshing density are expected to fall within Exact or Acceptable limits.

Summary of Examples
The example problems addressed plane frame, three-dimensional, and wall structures as
well as shear wall and floor objects. The analyses completed included dynamic response
spectrum, eigenvalue, nonlinear time history, and static gravity and lateral load.

Other program features tested include treatment of automatic generation of seismic and
wind loads, automatic story mass calculation, biaxial friction pendulum and biaxial
hysteretic elements, brace and column members with no bending stiffness, column pinned
end connections, multiple diaphragms, non-rigid joint offsets on beams and columns,
panel zones, point assignments, rigid joint offsets, section properties automatically
recovered from the database, uniaxial damper element, uniaxial gap elements, vertical
beam span loading and user specified lateral loads and section properties.

Slab examples S01 through S07 verify the accuracy of the elements and the solution
algorithms used in ETABS. These examples compare displacements and member internal
forces computed by ETABS with known theoretical solutions for various slab support and
load conditions.

Slab examples S08 through S014 verify the applicability of ETABS in calculating design
moments in slabs by comparing results for practical slab geometries with experimental
results and/or results using ACI 318-95 recommendations.

Slab design examples verify the design algorithms used in ETABS for flexural, shear
design of beam; flexural and punching shear of reinforced concrete slab; and flexural
design and serviceability stress checks of post-tensioned slab by comparing ETABS results
with hand calculations.

Analysis: Of the fifteen Analysis problems, eight showed exact agreement while the
remaining seven showed acceptable agreement between ETABS and the cited independent
sources.

Analysis – Slab: All fourteen slab Analysis problems showed acceptable agreement
between ETABS and the cited independent sources.

Design – Steel Frame: All 32 Steel Frame Design problems showed acceptable agreement
between ETABS and the cited independent sources.

Design – Concrete Frame: All 30 Concrete Frame Design problems showed acceptable
agreement between ETABS and the cited independent sources.

Design – Shear Wall: All 30 of the Shear Wall Design problems showed acceptable
agreement between ETABS and the cited independent sources.

Summary of Examples 2
 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: ETABS
REVISION NO.: 6

Design – Composite Beam: The 9 Composite Beam Design problems showed acceptable
agreement between ETABS and the cited independent sources.

Design – Composite Column: The 3 Composite Column Design problems showed

Design – Slab: The 69 Slab Design problems showed acceptable agreement between
ETABS and cited independent sources.

Summary of Examples 3