FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

Project Title Job No.

Discipline Structural File Ref.

Review Date Reviewer

Project Stage Circulation

Abbreviations Legend
ES = Every Storey MARD = Model and Analysis Results Display Pass 
BA = Building Analysis VIM = Active Windows Settings  Visual Interrogation Fail X
APP = Analysis Post-Processing DEAS = Differential Elastic Axial Shortening Not Applicable NA
FEFA = FE Floor Analysis CBAFE = Combination of Building Analysis and the FE Based Gravity Load Chase Down

Building SLS Load (MN) | Undecomposed | BA | CBAFE | BA+CBAFE Foundation

Checklist Inclusions and Exclusions

EQ Checks Excluded Wall / Column Nodal Loads and Live Load Reduction Checks Excluded Hinged Beam Checks Excluded

Wall / Column Clear Height, Effective Height and Base Support Checks Included Transferred Wall / Column on Transfer Beam / Slab Checks Included

Section Properties, Torsion and Horizontal Framing Checks Excluded Method of Slab Analysis, Beam Load Application and Frame Analysis Checks Excluded

Redundant Slab, Beam and Wall / Column Analysis and Design Checks Excluded Rare Slab, Beam and Wall / Column Analysis and Design Checks Included

Pad Footing Checks Excluded Strip Footing Checks Excluded Raft / Piled Raft Footing Checks Excluded Pile Footing Checks Excluded

Note that in this document, the terms steel, rebar and reinforcement refer to steel reinforcement bars associated with RC or PT
construction, whilst the term tendon refers to tendons associated with PT construction.

ITEM CONTENT 
1.0 COMPANY STANDARD TEMPLATE CHECKS
1.1 General
1.11 Company standard template used  Housing-EQ Housing-NoEQ MultiStorey-EQ MultiStorey-NoEQ
1.12 Date of release of company standard template.
1.2 Variations to Company Standard Template
1.21 VIM  Materials  check default and storey specific concrete and steel/tendon grade
for slab/beam/wall/column/foundation. C |C |C |C |C
Run  BA  Model Options Tab  Stiffnesses Sub-Tab  check kI and kJ are 1.00
(i.e. uncracked) for Class 1 PT or Class 2 PT and 0.50 (i.e. cracked) for RC or Class 3 kI=0.50, kJ=0.50
PT.
1.22 Braced/unbraced wall/column. Braced
1.23 Maximum beam/wall/column rebar diameter. T32/T32/T40
1.24 Adoption of (unique) design links at beam supports. Adopted
1.25 Beam section cuts (span only – once for every beam or once for every axis). Span, once every beam
1.26 RigidZones Maximum or RigidZones None. RigidZones None
1.27 Compatibility torsion (kJ=1.0 BA, 1.0 CBAFE) for transfer / edge beams for Class 1 PT
or Class 2 PT.
kJ=0.5 BA, 1.0 CBAFE
Compatibility torsion (kJ=0.5 BA, 1.0 CBAFE) for transfer / edge beams for RC or
Class 3 PT.
1.28 Foundation load combinations G+Q load factor (1.00, 1.02, 1.05, 1.10). 1.00
1.29 Etcetera.
1.3 Variations to Material Properties
2.0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN INTENT CHECKS
2.1 General
2.11 File  Model/File Import  External Reference Drawing  check consistency of wall/column positions (ES).
2.12 File  Model/File Import  External Reference Drawing  check consistency of slab/beam drops (ES).
2.13 File  Model/File Import  External Reference Drawing  check consistency of slab edges and openings (ES).
2.14 Storeys  Edit Storey  check storey heights, h (mm) including stump depth (hSt01 > deepest beam to ensure
correct wall/column base shears) and Foundation Depth, i.e. thickness of foundation (pad, strip, raft or pile cap).
2.15 Storeys  Edit Storey  check total building height, HT (mm).

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e |1
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
3.0 FRAMING AND LOADING CHECKS
3.1 Framing Intent
3.11 Check floor framing intent (i.e. simple support, continuous, cantilever) is visually comprehensible.
Check staircase framing intent (i.e. longitudinal, transverse, stiffener) is visually comprehensible.
Check joint scheme (contraction, expansion, settlement and sway joints) is visually comprehensible.
Check frame sizes  VIM  Slab Thickness / Beam Sections / Wall Thickness / Column Sections  check slab
thickness / beam sections / wall thickness / column sections  compare: -

(i) slab sizes w.r.t. span to depth ratios (30 RC, 40 PT), ULS bending stress MULS/bh2  1N/mm2 <<
5N/mm2, ProtaStructure analytical slab strips and FEFA deflections, with MULS checked based on 1.4
x tributary width x (15.0-25.0kPa) x L2/12,

(ii) beam sizes w.r.t. span to depth ratios (20 RC, 30 PT), ULS shear stress VULS/bh  3N/mm2 <<
5N/mm2 and ULS bending stress MULS/bh2  3N/mm2 << 5N/mm2 and FEFA deflections, with MULS
and VULS checked based on 1.4 x tributary width x (15.0-25.0kPa) x L2/12 and 1.4 x tributary
width x (15.0-25.0kPa) x L/2, respectively with As,prov  3000 . MULS (kNm) / d (mm),

(iii) shear wall #A sizes w.r.t. scheme design ratios (for 0.4% steel, AC  FULS / [15@C35; 17@C40;
19@C45; 21@C50; 23@C55; 25@C60] #B effectively equalising axial stress at every level to cater
for DEAS #C) and shear wall detailing capacity tables, with FULS checked based on 1.4 x tributary area
x no. of storeys x (15.0-25.0kPa) #D,

(iv) transfer beam sizes w.r.t. ULS shear stress VULS/bh  3N/mm2 << 5N/mm2 and ULS bending stress
MULS/bh2  3N/mm2 << 5N/mm2, ULS punching shear transfer column face stress Veff/ud  4N/mm2
<< 5N/mm2 (applicable when transfer beam width > column width), deep beam design #E1 and
CBAFE deflections, with MULS = FULS.L/4 and VULS = FULS/2 #F1 computed from FULS checked based on
1.4 x tributary area x no. of storeys x (15.0-25.0kPa) #D,

(v) transfer slab sizes w.r.t. ULS shear stress VULS/bh  3N/mm2 << 5N/mm2 and ULS bending stress
MULS/bh2  3N/mm2 << 5N/mm2, ULS punching shear transfer column and transferred walls/columns
face stress Veff/ud  4N/mm2 << 5N/mm2, ULS punching shear transfer column and transferred
walls/columns perimeter stress Veff/ud << 1N/mm2, deep beam design #E2 and CBAFE deflections,
with MULS = FULS.L/4 and VULS = FULS/2 #F2 computed from FULS checked based on 1.4 x tributary area
x no. of storeys x (15.0-25.0kPa) #D,

(vi) column #A sizes w.r.t. scheme design ratios (for 2.0% steel, AC  FULS / [20@C35; 22@C40; 24@C45;
26@C50; 28@C55; 30@C60] #B effectively equalising axial stress at every level to cater for DEAS
#C
), with FULS checked based on 1.4 x tributary area x no. of storeys x (15.0-25.0kPa) #D,

(vii) lateral stability frame size and extent w.r.t. scheme design ratios (height / 10) whilst confirming the
braced/unbraced wall/column conditions based on the lateral stability system, the Moment Ratio
Check and/or the Sway Susceptibility Check (NHF / wind: non-sway with Q/1.4 ≤ 0.05 and sway with
Q/1.4 ≤ 0.25 with default stiffness parameters; EQ: non-sway with q.Q/0.7 ≤ 0.05 and sway with
q.Q/0.7 ≤ 0.25 with default stiffness parameters),
#G
(viii) lateral stability frame size and extent w.r.t. lateral stability base shear magnitude distribution and
lateral stability base moment magnitude distribution #H, and

(ix) lateral stability frame size and extent w.r.t. lateral deflections to NHF / wind #I (total/2 ≤ Htotal/500 and
storey,I/2 ≤ hstorey,I/500 with default stiffness parameters) and EQ #I (q.total ≤ Htotal/250 and
q.storey,I ≤ hstorey,I/250 (with fundamental period T1/2) with default stiffness parameters), (ES).

#A: Note check wall/column for Len≥1, correctness of duplicate storeys and perform Building Model Check.

#B: Note check Column Capacity Analyses Table for ULS axial stress FULS/AC (BA / CBAFE) and % steel << 2%(shear
wall vertical steel % limit for avoidance of through-thickness links)/5%(column vertical steel % limit).

#C: Note check MARD and FEFA for DEAS and MARD for lateral deflection (sway) of the building due to DL+SDL+LL.

#D: Note check MARD animated deflections for spurious members whilst ensuring gradual wall/column axial load
increment and check Column Forces Listing for minimal discrepancy between BA and CBAFE wall/column axial load
take down by ensuring minimal differential beam support (i.e. wall/column point) settlement (due to DEAS and differential
transfer floor deflection) in MARD and FEFA !.

#E1: Note check (a) transfer beam / transferred wall strut and tie truss analogy design for the transferred wall (acting as
the diagonal compression element with the provision of horizontal steel equivalent to ¼ of the required vertical steel) and

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e |2
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
transfer beam (acting as the tension element with the provision of rebar of 0.95fy.As,prov to resist FULS/4 over the transfer beam
depth of span/3), (b) transfer beam deep beam design with As,prov  3800 . MULS (kNm) / h (mm), (c) transfer beam
longitudinal shear within web and between web and flanges and (d) transfer beam torsion design.

#E2: Note check (a) transfer slab / transferred wall strut and tie truss analogy design for the transferred wall (acting as
the diagonal compression element with the provision of horizontal steel equivalent to ¼ of the required vertical steel) and
transfer slab (acting as the tension element with the provision of rebar of 0.95fy.As,prov to resist FULS/4 over the transfer slab
depth of span/3), (b) transfer slab deep beam design with As,prov  3800 . MULS (kNm) / h (mm) and (c) transfer slab
longitudinal shear within web.

#F1: Note check MARD and FEFA for minimal discrepancy between BA and CBAFE transfer beam bending moments
by ensuring minimal differential transfer beam support (i.e. wall/column point) settlement (due to DEAS) !.

#F2: Note check MARD and FEFA for minimal discrepancy between BA and CBAFE transfer slab bending moments
by ensuring minimal differential transfer slab support (i.e. wall/column point) settlement (due to DEAS) !.

#G: Note check Column Capacity Analyses Table for ULS shear stress  = VULS/AC  3N/mm2 (based on nominal link
provision for vertical elements loaded to 40%fcu at ULS i.e. the capacity for a 0.4% steel reinforced vertical element) <<
5N/mm2 for all stability base shear resisting elements i.e. shear walls above transfer and shear walls / mega columns below
transfer.

#H: Note ensure no foundation uplift.

#I: Note check on-plan torsional twist due to NHF, wind and EQ loads.
3.2 Slab Loads
3.21 VIM  Slab Live Loads  check slab LL (ES).
3.22 VIM  Slab Additional Dead Loads  check slab SDL (ES).
3.23 3D Visualisation  check slab point, line and partial patch loading visually (ES).
3.3 Beam Loads
3.31 VIM  Beam Wall Loads  check internal cladding load (ES).
3.32 VIM  Beam Wall Loads  check external cladding load (ES).
3.33 VIM  Beams with User Defined Loads  check beams with user defined loads (ES).
3.4 Wall/Column Loads
3.5 Lateral Loads
3.51 Run  BA  Pre-Analysis Tab  Project Parameters and Loading Subsection  Storey Loads and Parameters 
check wind loads (ES).
3.6 Imposed Load Reduction
3.7 Load Combination Cases
4.0 BOUNDARY CONDITION CHECKS
4.1 Beam/Column Releases
4.11 Member  Member Tables  Beam/Column Table  check Hinge = None (ES).
4.2 Wall/Column Clear Height
4.21 Wall/Column Clear Height Calculation
Item Wall Clear Height Column Clear Height
Beam Depths h-bot Not Included Included #A
Beam Drops or Elevation
#B
h-top (Method 1 – Not Included Included
Insignificant Drops)
Included only if a corresponding Included only if a corresponding
Beam Drops or Elevation
del z definition is specified for del z definition is specified for
del z (Method 2 –
the wall in the particular storey the column in the particular
Significant Drops)
and the storey above storey and the storey above
Included only if the number of Included only if the number of
Multiple Storey
storeys that the wall spans is storeys that the column spans is
Wall/Column Spans
specified in Len (Storey) #C specified in Len (Storey) #C
#A: Note that +ve h-bot (i.e. downwards) is recognized in the clear height calculation for columns in the particular storey,
however -ve h-bot (i.e. upwards) is not recognized in the clear height calculation for columns in the particular storey.
#B: Note that +ve h-top (i.e. upwards) is recognized in the clear height calculation for columns in the storey above, however –
ve h-top (i.e. downwards) is not recognized in the clear height calculation for columns in the storey above.
#C: Member  Member Tables  Wall/Column Table  check Len (Storey) = 1, 2, 3 etc., noting that only walls/columns
that are strutted/tied in both directions may be considered Len (Storey) = 1 (ES). Struts/ties should be capable of
resisting 2.5% of the design ultimate vertical load that the wall/column is designed to carry at the point of lateral support

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e |3
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
th
as stipulated by cl.3.9.2.3 BS8110-1. Note that the struts/ties should be at least 1/10 of the stiffness of the columns, i.e.
Ibeam/Lbeam ≥ 0.10[Icolumn/Lcolumn] to be effective as suggested by cl.2.5.4 BS8110-2 and is to be fully restrained by a
horizontal diaphragm (floor slab, note that flat slab also constitutes a horizontal diaphragm), failing which the summation of
beam stiffnesses of at least 1/10th of the summation of column stiffnesses is mandatory.
4.22 Recognition of Len (Storey) ≥ 2 Wall/Column As Beam Supports
for Beams Not on the Wall/Column Defined Storey
Item BA FEFA
Wall
Not Recognized Not Recognized
(Mid-Pier Model)
Wall
Recognized Not Recognized
(FE Shell Model)
Column Recognized Not Recognized
4.3 Wall/Column Effective Length Factor
4.31 Building  Parameters  Lateral Drift Tab  check Braced for walls/columns in a lateral stability system (ES): -
(i) that exist in a coupled shear wall (minor plane only) / outrigger frame (outrigger columns only)
/ (framed) tube flange / (framed) tube web (minor plane only) lateral stability system (cl.3.8.1.5
BS8110-1), and
(ii) that have a total (of all walls/columns in question) gross stiffness ≤ 1/12th of the total gross
stiffness of the bracing elements resisting lateral movement of that storey (cl.6.2.5 ACI 318-14), and
(iii) that exhibit a total (of all walls/columns in question) magnitude of shear force and bending moment
(excluding the bending moment back-calculated by multiplying the push-pull axial forces of the
walls/columns at the frame extremity) based on the Moment Ratio Check ≤ 1/12th of the total
magnitude of shear force and bending moment (including ditto) of the bracing elements resisting lateral
movement of that storey (inferred from cl.6.2.5 ACI 318-14), and
(iv) that are within a sway storey (exhibiting Q ≤ 0.25 or   4.0) based on the Sway Susceptibility Check
but with elastic second-order analysis / P- analysis / lateral loads (wind, EQ) amplification with the
amplified sway factor, m = /(1) performed (cl.6.2.6 and cl.R6.7.1.2 ACI 318-14), or (albeit
unconservatively)
(v) that are within a non-sway storey (exhibiting Q ≤ 0.05 or   20) based on the Sway Susceptibility
Check (based on cl.6.6.4.3(b) ACI 318-14).
Note that for significant buildings, based on a (vertical load take down, base lateral load distribution and
lateral drift verified) CSI.Etabs model, a first principle eigenvalue buckling analysis should be performed to
confirm the global building buckling characteristics (requiring   4.0 to cl.R6.2.6 ACI 318-14 and to verify
the value for m in m = /(1)) and local mega column buckling characteristics ((requiring   1).
4.32 Building  Parameters  Lateral Drift Tab  check Unbraced for walls/columns in a lateral stability system
(ES): -
(i) that exist in a coupled shear wall (major plane only) / moment frame / outrigger frame (except
outrigger columns) / (framed) tube web (major plane only) lateral stability system (cl.3.8.1.5
BS8110-1), or
(ii) that have a total (of all walls/columns in question) gross stiffness > 1/12th of the total gross
stiffness of the bracing elements resisting lateral movement of that storey (cl.6.2.5 ACI 318-14), or
(iii) that exhibit a total (of all walls/columns in question) magnitude of shear force or bending moment
(excluding the bending moment back-calculated by multiplying the push-pull axial forces of the
walls/columns at the frame extremity) based on the Moment Ratio Check > 1/12th of the total
magnitude of shear force or bending moment (including ditto) of the bracing elements resisting lateral
movement of that storey (inferred from cl.6.2.5 ACI 318-14), and (albeit unconservatively)
(iv) that are within a sway storey (exhibiting Q > 0.05 or  < 20) based on the Sway Susceptibility Check
(based on cl.6.6.4.3(b) ACI 318-14).
Note that for significant buildings, based on a (vertical load take down, base lateral load distribution and
lateral drift verified) CSI.Etabs model, a first principle eigenvalue buckling analysis should be performed to
confirm the global building buckling characteristics (requiring   4.0 to cl.R6.2.6 ACI 318-14 and to verify
the value for m in m = /(1)) and local mega column buckling characteristics ((requiring   1).
4.33 Run  Column Section Design  Design Tab  Interactive Design  Slenderness Tab  check manually
Edited Bracing for walls/columns in structures with transferred lateral stability (e.g. braced shear wall
residential block on an unbraced moment frame car park podium, noting that should the car park podium
floors be constructed in flat slabs instead of in beams and slabs, the unbraced mega columns beneath the
transfer floor would effectively resist a primary stability base shear induced vierendeel moment over its height
from the transfer floor to a base level that can effectively transfer the stability base shear into the foundations
unless, and as highly recommended, a certain proportion of the existing shear walls are continued below the
transfer floor to the foundations or if new shear walls are introduced below the transfer floor, yielding a scenario
akin to the core and outrigger form of stability whereby the stability base moment is resolved into axial forces
into the then braced (provided cl.6.2.5 and conservatively cl.6.6.4.3(b) ACI 318-14 are satisfied for a non-
sway storey) mega columns and the stability base shear is transferred by the transfer floor diaphragm to the

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e |4
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
shear walls beneath the transfer floor into the foundations; note that even if the car park podium floors were
constructed in beams and slabs, it is likely that the stability base shear will migrate to the usually stiffer shear
walls if they are provided; note that a ULS shear stress check should be done on all stability base shear
resisting elements) (ES).
4.4 Wall/Column Base Support Conditions
4.41 Member  Member Tables  Wall/Column Table  Support Type  check User-Defined (Member  Support
Type Definitions  introduce lateral and rotational flexibility): -
Pad, Strip, Raft, Piled Raft Foundations
- Introduce lateral flexibility in both directions in accordance with soil stiffness.
- Introduce zero rotational flexibility in both planes.
Piled Foundations (with Dropped or Integrated Pile Caps)
- Introduce lateral flexibility in both directions in accordance with soil stiffness.
- Introduce rotational flexibility in both planes for single-pile pile caps and one plane for double-pile pile caps.
4.42 Check stepped foundations levels relative to St00 (e.g. general pile cap level compared to the lift pit pile cap
level) defined with +ve del z (bot) upwards in the St01 wall/column definitions.
4.43 Check stepped foundations levels relative to St0i where i≥1 defined with +ve del z (bot) upwards and Support
Types defined in St0i+1 wall/column definitions (Member  Member Tables  Wall/Column Table  Support
Type  check User-Defined Support) noting that user-defined support types are defined in Member  Support
Type Definitions. Alternatively, wall/column definitions at St0i+1 where i≥1 may be defined with Len (Storey) ≥ 2
and +ve del z (bot) upwards defined to extend beyond the storey height(s).
5.0 MODELLING CHECKS
5.1 General
5.11 Check all elements (with the allowable exception of columns) modelled with their insertion lines/points closest
to their centroid (ES).
5.12 Check that secondary beam spans break at primary beam crossings and that primary beam spans break at
wall/column crossings (ES).
Check that offset beams (which are secondary beams that frame into the beam in question within the footprint
of the wall/column) are avoided as far as it is practical so as to prevent the potential error message
“analysis moment and moment calculated using the diagrams not matching” in the RigidZones None case (ES).
Check that beam insertion points do not project through and beyond the column insertion points (ES).
Check that user defined point loads are not applied at the extreme tip of cantilever beams but slightly inset so as
to prevent the error message “analysis moment and moment calculated using the diagrams not matching” (ES).
5.13 Check 3D Visualisation for accuracy of modelling in particular: -
 slab and beam drops and soffit continuity (ES).
 avoidance of voids in beam wall loading (ES).
 consistency of inter-storey wall/column setting out (ES).
 check skeletal FE model (Run  BA  Post Analysis  MARD) for rigid beams erroneously interconnecting
different stories (ES).
 multi-storey (Len (Storey) > 1) wall/column element spans, noting that only walls/columns that are
strutted/tied in both directions may be considered Len (Storey) = 1 (ES).
 employment of FE Shell Model idealisation instead of the Mid-Pier idealisation for long walls whereby the
effect of shear lag may be prominent (ES).
5.14 Member  Member Tables  Slab Table  check Slab Does Not Contribute to Floor Diaphragm for all dropped
slabs, inclined slabs, slabs near inclined walls/columns and conservatively slabs near basement retaining walls to
ensure that the stability base shear is resisted by the walls/columns supporting the superstructure (ES).
5.15 Check all cantilever beams are manually marked as such (to enable the correct cantilever reinforcement detailing
and the correct deflection assessment based on cantilever span / depth ratios), the option to “automatically mark
all cantilever beams” should not be used with the existence of non-prismatic beams as they will be incorrectly
marked as such (ES).
5.16 Check all duplicate storeys share the same storey height (only beneath for the BA method and both above
and beneath for the CBAFE method) with their parent storey to ensure that wall/column clear heights are
accurately calculated. If Len (Storey) > 1 is adopted for wall/column definitions, then the above requirement is to
be likewise extended to multiple storeys. Check all duplicate storeys share the same wall/column dimensions
(both above and beneath for the CBAFE method) with their parent storey to ensure correct load take down.
5.2 Section and Material Properties
5.22 Member  Member Tables  Slab Table  check cover 25mm internal and 40mm external (e.g. ground,
podium deck, swimming pool, water tank, roof) (ES).
5.3 Element Horizontal Framing
5.4 Element Vertical Framing
5.41 Requirement of Element to Frame Vertically (Between Storeys)
onto Element Insertion Point / Line (or Simply Within the Element Footprint on Plan)

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e |5
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 

Element Slab Beam Wall Column

Slab N/A N/A N/A N/A
Beam N/A N/A N/A N/A
#A #B2 #B1, #C #B1
Wall Not Required Required Required Required
#D #E #F #F
Column Not Required Required Not Required Not Required
#A: Check wall insertion lines need only frame onto footprint of transfer slab (ES).
#B1: Check wall insertion lines frame onto transfer column insertion points. Manually perform the strut and tie truss
analogy design for the transferred wall and the transferred wall bearing stress check to 0.40fcu at supports (over the
minimum of the length of the support or 0.2 x clear span, ref. CIRIA Guide 2 and thickness of the transferred wall) for the
transferred wall (ES).
#B2: Check wall insertion lines frame onto transfer beam insertion lines. Manually perform the strut and tie truss analogy
design for the transferred wall (acting as the diagonal compression element) and transfer beam (acting as the tension
element). Manually perform the deep beam design for the transfer beam. (ES).
#C: Check wall insertion lines frame onto wall insertion lines (ES).
#D: Check column insertion points need only frame onto footprint of transfer slab (ES).
#E: Check column insertion points frame onto transfer beam insertion lines (ES).
#F: Check column insertion points need only frame onto footprint of wall/column (ES).
5.42 Check employment of FE Shell Model (with mesh size being reduced until convergence of the wall axial forces
and bending moments) idealisation instead of the Mid-Pier idealisation for transferred walls at the transfer level
for a greater distribution of load and the realistic adoption of the wall contribution to the load transfer.
5.43 Check for transferred walls framing across multiple transfer walls / transfer columns / transfer beams along the
same axis that the FE Shell Model idealisation instead of the Mid-Pier idealisation is used as the latter will not
distribute the load over the multiple transfer elements but instead concentrate the load on potentially a single
transfer element. If the Mid-Pier idealisation is to be used nevertheless, then the transferred walls need to be
split at all supporting transfer beam to wall/column interfaces so as to generate the correct loading distribution.
5.44 Check transfer wall / transfer beam and transferred wall are modelled with their insertion lines at their
centroids and coincident with each other as beam torsions due to any relative offset will not be generated as
beam rigid links are not created. Check transfer column / transfer beam and transferred column are modelled
with their insertion lines / points coincident with each other, however the transferred column insertion points
need not be at their centroids as beam torsions due to any relative offset will be generated as beam rigid links
are created.
5.45 Modelling of Transferred Walls
Transfer
Transfer Wall/ Rigid Overlap
#A Remark
red Wall Column Zones
#C

 Correct flexible representation of transfer beam bending

#B #B No moment and shear force effects
Wall Wall None
Overlap  Correct RC rebar arrangement – no manual elongation of
rebar and link required (rebar linking across wall required)
 Correct flexible representation of transfer beam bending
#B No moment and shear force effects
Wall Column None
Overlap  Correct RC rebar arrangement – no manual elongation of
rebar and link required (rebar linked across column)
 Correct rigid representation of transfer beam bending
Full /
#B #B #D moment and shear force effects
Wall Wall None Partial
 Incorrect RC rebar arrangement – manual elongation of
Overlap
rebar and link required (rebar linking across wall required)
 Correct rigid representation of transfer beam bending
Full /
#B moment and shear force effects
Wall Column None Partial
 Correct RC rebar arrangement – no manual elongation of
Overlap
rebar and link required (rebar linked across column)
 Correct flexible representation of transfer beam bending
#B #B No moment and shear force effects
Wall Wall Max
Overlap  Correct RC rebar arrangement – no manual elongation of
rebar and link required (rebar linking across wall required)
 Correct flexible representation of transfer beam bending
#B No moment and shear force effects
Wall Column Max
Overlap  Correct RC rebar arrangement – no manual elongation of
rebar and link required (rebar linked across column)
#B #B #D Full /  Incorrect representation of transfer beam bending
Wall Wall Max
Partial moment and shear force effects

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e |6
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
Overlap
Full /
#B  Incorrect representation of transfer beam bending
Wall Column Max Partial
moment and shear force effects
Overlap
#A: Overlap refers to overlap between transferred wall and transfer wall/column.
#B: Wall may refer to either Mid-Pier wall or FE Shell Model wall. For FE Shell Model walls, smaller shell mesh sizes should be
investigated until convergence of the maximum support shear force effects on transfer beams.
#C: With regards to the wall/column effective length calculation, the clear height computation for walls does not incorporate
the reduction due to the depth of the incoming beam(s) whilst the clear height computation for columns does incorporate the
reduction due to the depth of the incoming beam(s).
#D: Check for models with transferred walls overlapping with transfer walls/columns, specify RigidZones as None in BA (and
for consistency Exclude Column Sections in FEFA) to avoid the error message “analysis moment and moment calculated
using the diagrams not matching” considering that the detailing is based upon the Diagram Moments. As an alternative to
specifying RigidZones as Maximum, specify walls instead of columns to effectively model columns with rigid beam arms.
5.5 Housekeeping
5.51 Edit  Re-Label Members  re-label all slabs and beams independently between storeys.
5.52 Edit  Re-Label Members  re-label all walls and columns consistently between storeys.
5.6 Model Integrity
5.61 Run  BA  Analysis Tab  Building Model Check Subsection  Building Model Check.
5.62 Edit  Move Members to Axes  Start.
6.0 METHOD OF ANALYSIS CHECKS
6.1 Method of Slab Analysis and Design
6.2 Method of Application of Slab Loads onto Beams
6.3 Method of Frame Analysis
6.32 Transferred Beam/Slab
on Transferred Wall/Column on Transfer Beam/Slab
ULS and SLS Effects ULS and SLS Effects
on Transferred on Transfer
Method of Frame
Beam or
Analysis Beam
Wall/Column
Beam or Slab Slab
Slab in Slab in
Wall/ Beam
Vicinity Vicinity
Column
Supported Supported
Supported Supported
Supported (Meshed (Meshed Supported
1 BA #A, #B #A, #A, #C (Meshed (Meshed
Slabs) Slabs)
#B #B Slabs) #D Slabs) #D
Not
Not Not Supported Supported Supported
2 CBAFE Supported #C #D #D
#A Supported Supported
#A: Check that the envelope effects of both Method 1 (meshed slabs) and Method 2 are used in the design of transferred
beams, transferred slabs in vicinity, transferred slabs and transferred walls/columns, noting that Method 1 (meshed slabs)
supports the effects of differential support settlement on superstructure beams, superstructure slabs in vicinity and
superstructure slabs supported on walls/columns on transfer beams or transfer slabs (meshed slabs) or due to DEAS of
adjacent walls/columns. Note that the actual results (which can be predicted by a staged construction analysis) fall in between
the effects produced by the two methods.
#B: Check that Method 1 (with a meshed transfer slab) or Method 1 (with Support Band type concealed beams workaround for
the transfer slab) is adopted to cater for the effects of differential support settlement of transferred beams, transferred
slabs in vicinity, transferred slabs and transferred walls/columns on transfer slabs.
#C: Check that Method 2 is used to evaluate the effects on the transfer beams as Method 2 does not allow for the flexibility
of the transfer beam resulting in larger action effects (forces, moments) on the transfer beam.
#D: Check that Method 2 is used to evaluate the effect of walls/columns on transfer slabs and on slabs in the vicinity of
walls/columns on transfer beams as Method 2 does not allow for the flexibility of the transfer slab / transfer beam
resulting in larger action effects (forces, moments) on the transfer slab / slabs in the vicinity of transfer beams.
7.0 SLAB ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CHECKS
7.1 General
7.11 In RC models, check sufficiency of number of slab strips in orthogonal directions to fully mesh slab with rebar
(ES).
In PT models, check sufficiency of number of slab strips in orthogonal directions to fully mesh slab with tendons
(and rebar) (ES).
7.2 Conventional Codified BS8110 Coefficients Method
7.3 Full FE Method Design Method
7.31 Run  FEFA  check Stiffness Factors (i.e. EI) for slab and beam are 1.00 (i.e. uncracked) for Class 1 PT or

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e |7
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
Class 2 PT and 0.50 (i.e. cracked) for RC or Class 3 PT (ES).
7.32 Positive and Negative Moment Factors for FEFA Effects
Positive Negative
Moment Moment
Factor Factor
(Less conservative) elasto-plastic slab design
1.2 0.8
(assuming conditions of cl.3.5.2.3 BS8110-1 satisfied)
(More conservative) elastic slab design
1.0 1.0
(assuming conditions of cl.3.5.2.3 BS8110-1 satisfied)
(More conservative) elastic slab design with equivalent pattern loading
1.2 1.0
(assuming conditions of cl.3.5.2.3 BS8110-1 not satisfied)
7.33 Run  FEFA  APP  check animated deflections for modelling accuracy (ES).
7.34 PT Tendon Modelling
Check tendons based on prestress force and eccentricity required for load balancing and prestress force for
average precompression (ES).

RC or PT Deflection Checks
Run  FEFA  APP  check |TLS|=|DL+PT| deflections  {[span/500 to span/350].C1, 20mm} (ES).
Run  FEFA  APP  check SLS=DL+SDL+LL+PT deflections  [span/250].C1 (ES).
Run  FEFA  APP  check kC.(DL+SDL)+LL+kC,PT.PT deflections  {[span/500 to span/350].C1, 20mm},
note the creep term also includes the total elastic axial shortening of the one storey in question (ES).
Run  FEFA  APP  check kC.(DL+SDL)+LL+kC,PT.PT deflections at façade beams  {[span/1000].C1,
20mm}, note the creep term also includes the total elastic axial shortening of the one storey in question (ES).
Note C1 = {0.8 for flanged beams, 10.0/span(m) for spans > 10.0m, 0.9 for flat slabs}. Note deflection criteria to
cl.3.4.6.3 and cl.3.4.6.4 BS8110-1 and cl.3.2.1.1 and cl.3.2.1.2 BS8110-2. Note creep factor, kc calculated from
equating 0.5.(1-0.4)DL+1.0SDL=kC.(DL+SDL) based on multiplying factor 0.5 for the total DL creep deflection
component (as opposed to the instantaneous deflection component) to (1-0.4) for the remaining 60%
component of DL creep deflection after 1 month (cl.7.3 BS8110-2), giving kC=[0.3DL+1.0SDL]/[DL+SDL]. Note
likewise creep factor, kc,PT calculated as (1-0.5/KLT.KST).(1-0.4)=0.2625.
LPB LPB

LS : slab deflection check

LS LS
LSB : secondary beam
deflection check
LSB LSB
LFR LPB : primary beam deflection
LFR check

LFR : frame (column to

column) deflection check

In RC models, note if necessary, the simulation of the beneficial effect of additional reinforcement in controlling
deflections can be made by factoring down the exhibited deflections by the ratio of the modified span / effective
depth to the ratio of the basic span / effective depth (cantilever 7.0, simply supported 20.0, continuous 26.0)
(ES).
7.35 PT Tendon Modelling
Check tendons based on prestress force and eccentricity required for load balancing and prestress force for
average precompression (ES).

RC or PT Design Strip Support Lines, RC or PT Design Strip Tributaries and RC or PT Design Strip
Design Sections Frequency
Check design strip support lines in X/Y directions (ES).
Check design strip tributaries in X/Y directions and design strip design sections frequency for RC (column and
middle design strip) or PT (full tributary width design strip) (ES).

FE Analysis Method RC Analysis and Design

Run  FEFA  APP  check RC analysis and design in X/Y directions (ES)
 check ULS bending effects MULS,E/E, note w.o./w. the differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent
supports.
 check ULS shear effects VULS,E/E, note w.o./w. the differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent supports.

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e |8
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
RC Design Strip Design Sections FE Analysis Method Integration of Effects Analysis and RC Design
Strip Design Sections Design
Run  FEFA  APP  check design strip design sections RC analysis and design in X/Y directions (ES)
 check ULS bending effects MULS,E/E based on 1.4 x tributary width x (15.0-25.0kPa) x L2/12, note w.o./w. the
differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent supports.
 check ULS shear effects VULS,E/E based on 1.4 x tributary width x (15.0-25.0kPa) x L/2, note w.o./w. the
differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent supports.
 check rebar areas (to resist ULS bending) required {As(d)1, As(d)2}, noting minimum steel.
 check ULS shear capacity, Vu is greater than ULS shear effects VULS,E/E together with the associated
required shear links Asv,req/S.
Run  Slab Analysis and Design  check sufficiency of rebar (to resist ULS bending) at all FE slab strips
(ES).

FE Analysis Method PT Analysis and Design

Run  FEFA  APP  check PT analysis and design in X/Y directions (ES)
 check TLS/SLS bending effects MTLS/SLS,E/E+MTLS/SLS,E/L are minimal.
 check ULS bending effects MULS,E/E+MULS,S/E, note w.o./w. the differential elastic axial shortening of
adjacent supports.
Note by convention, +ve bending moment is sagging and –ve bending moment is hogging (consistent with
ProtaStructure).
 check TLS/SLS average precompression 0.7-2.5N/mm2 for slab and 2.5-4.5N/mm2 for beam.
 check TLS top stress f’min,t ≤ f’t ≤ f’max,t
BM:| -1.0 ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL2] | -0.25fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL3] |
FS:| -1.0 ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL2] | -0.45√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL3] |
 check TLS bottom stress f’min,b ≤ f’b ≤ f’max,b
BM:| -1.0 ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL2] | -0.25fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL3] |
FS:| -1.0 ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL2] | -0.45√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL3] |
 check SLS top stress fmin,t ≤ ft ≤ fmax,t
BM:| -0.0 ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL2] | -<.......> ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL3] |
FS:| -0.0 ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL2] | -0.45√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL3] |
Note -<.......> = MAX {-0.25fcu, (0.7-1.1).(-0.58√fcu to -0.82√fcu)-4N/mm2/1.0%}.
 check SLS bottom stress fmin,b ≤ fb ≤ fmax,b
BM:| -0.0 ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL2] | -<.......> ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL3] |
FS:| -0.0 ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL2] | -0.45√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL3] |
Note -<.......> = MAX {-0.25fcu, (0.7-1.1).(-0.58√fcu to -0.82√fcu)-4N/mm2/1.0%}.
Note by convention, +ve stress is compressive and –ve stress is tensile (consistent with ProtaStructure).

PT Design Strip Design Sections FE Analysis Method Integration of Effects Analysis and PT Design
Strip Design Sections Design
Run  FEFA  APP  check design strip design sections PT analysis and design in X/Y directions (ES)
 check |TLS|=|DL+PT| deflections  {[span/500 to span/350].C1, 20mm}.
 check SLS=DL+SDL+LL+PT deflections  [span/250].C1.
 check kC.(DL+SDL)+LL+kC,PT.PT deflections  {[span/500 to span/350].C1, 20mm}, note the creep term also
includes the total elastic axial shortening of the one storey in question.
 check kC.(DL+SDL)+LL+kC,PT.PT deflections at façade beams  {[span/1000].C1, 20mm}, note the creep
term also includes the total elastic axial shortening of the one storey in question.
Note C1 = {0.8 for flanged beams, 10.0/span(m) for spans > 10.0m, 0.9 for flat slabs}. Note deflection criteria to
cl.3.4.6.3 and cl.3.4.6.4 BS8110-1 and cl.3.2.1.1 and cl.3.2.1.2 BS8110-2. Note creep factor, kc calculated from
equating 0.5.(1-0.4)DL+1.0SDL=kC.(DL+SDL) based on multiplying factor 0.5 for the total DL creep deflection
component (as opposed to the instantaneous deflection component) to (1-0.4) for the remaining 60%
component of DL creep deflection after 1 month (cl.7.3 BS8110-2), giving kC=[0.3DL+1.0SDL]/[DL+SDL]. Note
likewise creep factor, kc,PT calculated as (1-0.5/KLT.KST).(1-0.4)=0.2625.
 check percentage of DL+SDL load balancing is approximately 70-100%.
 check TLS/SLS bending effects MTLS/SLS,E/E+MTLS/SLS,E/L are minimal.
 check ULS bending effects MULS,E/E+MULS,S/E based on 1.4 x tributary width x (15.0-25.0kPa) x L2/12 and
hyperstatic effects, note w.o./w. the differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent supports.
Note by convention, +ve bending moment is sagging and –ve bending moment is hogging (consistent with
ProtaStructure).
 check TLS/SLS shear effects VTLS/SLS,E/E+VTLS/SLS,E/L are minimal.
 check ULS shear effects VULS,E/E+VULS,S/E based on 1.4 x tributary width x (15.0-25.0kPa) x L/2 and
hyperstatic effects, note w.o./w. the differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent supports.
Note an arbitrary sign convention adopted for shear force (consistent with ProtaStructure).
 check TLS/SLS average precompression 0.7-2.5N/mm2 for slab and 2.5-4.5N/mm2 for beam.
 check TLS top stress f’min,t ≤ f’t ≤ f’max,t

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e |9
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
BM:| -1.0 ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL2] | -0.25fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL3] |
FS:| -1.0 ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL2] | -0.45√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL3] |
 check TLS bottom stress f’min,b ≤ f’b ≤ f’max,b
BM:| -1.0 ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL2] | -0.25fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL3] |
FS:| -1.0 ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL2] | -0.45√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL3] |
 check SLS top stress fmin,t ≤ ft ≤ fmax,t
BM:| -0.0 ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL2] | -<.......> ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL3] |
FS:| -0.0 ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL2] | -0.45√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL3] |
Note -<.......> = MAX {-0.25fcu, (0.7-1.1).(-0.58√fcu to -0.82√fcu)-4N/mm2/1.0%}.
 check SLS bottom stress fmin,b ≤ fb ≤ fmax,b
BM:| -0.0 ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL2] | -<.......> ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL3] |
FS:| -0.0 ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL2] | -0.45√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL3] |
Note -<.......> = MAX {-0.25fcu, (0.7-1.1).(-0.58√fcu to -0.82√fcu)-4N/mm2/1.0%}.
Note by convention, +ve stress is compressive and –ve stress is tensile (consistent with ProtaStructure).
 check rebar areas (to resist SLS tensile stress) required {As(d)1, As(d)2}, noting minimum steel.
 check ULS moment capacity, Mu is greater than ULS bending effects MULS,E/E+MULS,S/E.
 check ULS shear capacity, Vu is greater than ULS shear effects VULS,E/E+VULS,S/E together with the associated
required shear links Asv,req/S.
Run  Slab Analysis and Design  check sufficiency of rebar (to resist SLS tensile stress) at all FE slab
strips (ES).

RC or PT Method of Slab Detailing

RC or PT Method of Slab Detailing
Method 1: Automatic specification of (top and bottom) reinforcement bars based on slab
Automatic strips setting Slab Design Settings  Steel Bars  Min Steel Bar Size T10 (i.e.
Specification of smallest available rebar diameter), Bar Spacing 100mm Min to 250mm Max and Steel
Reinforcement Bar Spacing Step 25mm. Note in this method, only the 1/3rd span hogging regions
Bars #A will be automatically reinforced, manual addition required for top steel throughout.
Automatic specification of (top) reinforcement mesh / bars based on slab strips
Method 2: setting Slab Design Settings  Steel Bars  Min Steel Bar Size T6, Bar Spacing
Semi-Automatic 100mm Min to 200mm Max, Steel Bar Spacing Step 100mm and subsequent manual
Specification of equivalent mesh substitution (where possible). Note in this method, only the 1/3 rd
Reinforcement span hogging regions will be automatically reinforced, manual addition required for
Mesh / Bars #A top steel throughout. Manual specification of (bottom) reinforcement mesh / bars
based on FEFA rebar areas required {As(d)1, As(d)2} for slab panels (Method 3).
Manual specification of (top) reinforcement mesh / bars based on FEFA rebar
Method 3:
areas required {As(d)1, As(d)2} for slab panels. Note in this method, since it is a
Manual
manual method, either only the 1/3rd span hogging regions may be reinforced or
Specification of
alternatively top steel may be provided throughout. Manual specification of
Reinforcement
(bottom) reinforcement mesh / bars based on FEFA rebar areas required {As(d)1,
Mesh / Bars #B
As(d)2} for slab panels.
#A: Applicable for both the Conventional Codified BS8110 Coefficients Method and the Full FEM Design method.
#B: Applicable for only the Full FEM Design method.

RC or PT Analysis and Design Summary Report

Check design strip design sections forces (ES).
Check design strip design sections rebar (ES).
Check design strip design sections moment capacities (ES).
Check design strip design sections dimensions (ES).
Check design strip design sections geometry (ES).
Check tendon and rebar plans (ES).
7.36 Manually check ULS shear stresses and shear design at beam/wall supports of heavily loaded slabs (ES).
7.37 Run  Column Punching Check  check ULS punching shear at wall/column supports of flat slabs together
with the associated required shear links Asv,req (ES).
8.0 BEAM AND WALL/COLUMN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CHECKS
8.1 Building Analysis Method
8.11 Run  BA  Post Analysis  MARD  check skeletal FE model correctly discretises the sectional model by
checking animated deflections for modelling accuracy ensuring that all primary beams do frame onto their
supporting columns (also displaying the primary beam ULS bending moments for clarity) (ES).
8.13 Run  BA  Post Analysis  MARD  check magnitude and shape of ULS effects (axial forces, shear forces,
bending moments, torsional moments) (ES).
8.14 Run  BA  Post Analysis  MARD  perform the Moment Ratio Check to comprehend the building primary

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 10
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
lateral stability elements by both: -
(i) comparing the relative magnitude of the coupled shear wall / moment frame / outrigger frame / tube
(shear mode) equivalent global bending moment (back-calculated by multiplying the push-pull axial
forces of the walls/columns at the frame extremity with the frame extremity lever arm, noting that the
effectiveness of the coupling beams / moment beams / outrigger beams / (framed) tube web spandrel
beams in contributing to the base moment resisting lateral stability is measured from the existence of
significant push-pull axial forces in the walls/columns at the frame extremity, from the existence of
significant local zig-zag bending moments in the walls/columns (except outrigger columns and tube flange
columns) or from the existence of significant zig-zag bending moments in the coupling beams / moment
beams / outrigger beams / (framed) tube web spandrel beams themselves) with the magnitude of the
shear wall (bending mode) cumulative bending moment (exhibited as cumulative bending moments
in the shear walls or as push-pull axial forces within the flanges of flanged shear walls) from lateral loads
only (noting that the summation of which shall match the stability base moment) (ES), and
(ii) comparing the relative magnitude of the summation of the coupled shear wall / moment frame /
outrigger frame (except outrigger columns) / (framed) tube (except tube flange columns) wall/column
(shear mode) shear forces (which cause the local zig-zag bending moments in the walls/columns,
noting that the effectiveness of the coupling beams / moment beams / outrigger beams / (framed) tube
web spandrel beams in contributing to the base shear resisting lateral stability is measured from the
existence of significant shear forces in the walls/columns (except outrigger columns and tube flange
columns) or from the existence of significant shear forces in the coupling beams / moment beams /
outrigger beams / (framed) tube web spandrel beams themselves) with the magnitude of the shear wall
(bending mode) cumulative shear force from lateral loads only (noting that the summation of which
shall match the stability base shear) (ES).
Note that the effect to the stability base moment and stability base shear of a transfer floor (defined as
a horizontal level at which the more extensive vertical elements on plan become discontinuous on elevation
ensuing in less extensive vertical elements on plan) is firstly, the resolution of the stability base moment at the
transfer level to constant push-pull axial forces in the walls/columns at the transfer frame extremity (somewhat
akin to the effect of an outrigger) below the transfer level and secondly, the redistribution of stability base
shear to different stability elements.

= +

Stability Base Stability Base

Moment (MNm) Shear (MN)
8.15 Run  BA  Post Analysis  MARD  and Run  FEFA  APP  check differential beam support SLS
settlement (i.e. SLS settlement at the wall/column points) due to DEAS of adjacent walls/columns (as a result
of non-uniform column sections areas or non-uniform axial loading due to say differing building heights) and/or
due to uneven flexibility of transfer beams below  span/400 (ES). Note that significant differential beam support
(i.e. wall/column point) settlement is also characterised by a significant lateral deflection (sway) of the building
due to DL+SDL+LL+PT alone to the side undergoing greater elastic shortening or to the side supported by
walls/columns on more flexible transfer beams (thus check for lateral movement of the floor plate on plan due to
DL+SDL+LL+PT alone is ≤ span/500). Finally, significant differential beam support (i.e. wall/column point)
settlement is also characterised by large discrepancies in the load take down, transfer beam bending
moments and the higher levels beam bending moments predicted between the BA and CBAFE methods of
frame analysis. Since it is difficult to reduce elastic shortening significantly, a better strategy is to limit the DEAS
by designing all walls/columns to the same axial stress level, maintain long clear spans between different
structural types, i.e. between lightly-loaded cores and shear walls on the one hand and heavily loaded columns
on the other or introduce settlement joints / pour strips between areas subject to large DEAS (ES).
8.16 Manually check that the bending moment design, ultimate shear force (ultimate shear stress) check and shear
force design of beams with incoming offset beams (i.e. secondary beams that frame into the beam in question
within the footprint of the wall/column) with a physical width that protrudes beyond the wall/column footprint is
sufficiently enhanced (ES).
8.17 Manually check beams (especially heavily loaded beams / transfer beams) with widths larger than the supporting
wall/column width for ultimate shear and design shear within a beam width equal to the supporting wall/column
width, notwithstanding the reverse analogy to multi column footing foundation shear design where the full width
of the footing beam contributes to the ultimate and design shear capacity. These beams need also be manually
checked for ULS punching shear (ES).
8.18 Manually check ULS shear stresses and shear design at transferred walls on transfer beams.
8.19 Manually check ULS punching shear at transferred walls/columns on transfer beams.

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 11
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
8.2 Combination of Building Analysis and the FE Based Gravity Load Chase Down Method
8.21 Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  check (uncracked) Stiffness Factors (i.e. EI) for (transfer) slab and (transfer) beam are
(2/3rd).(1.00)0.66 for Class 1 PT or Class 2 PT, note the further 2/3rd reduction factor applied to simulate the
additional deflection due to creep to storage loading instead of normal loading (i.e. creep coefficient, =2 for
storage loading instead of =1 for normal loading).
Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  check (cracked) Stiffness Factors (i.e. EI) for (transfer) slab and (transfer) beam are
(2/3rd).(0.50)0.32 for RC or Class 3 PT, note the further 2/3rd reduction factor applied to simulate the additional
deflection due to creep to storage loading instead of normal loading (i.e. creep coefficient, =2 for storage
loading instead of =1 for normal loading).
8.22 PT Tendon Modelling
Check tendons based on prestress force and eccentricity required for load balancing and prestress force for
average precompression.

RC or PT Deflection Checks
Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  APP  check |TLS|=|DL+PT| deflections  {[span/500 to span/350].C1, 20mm}.
Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  APP  check SLS=DL+SDL+LL+PT deflections  [span/250].C1.
Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  APP  check kC.(DL+SDL)+LL+kC,PT.PT deflections  {[span/500 to span/350].C1,
20mm}, note the creep term also includes the total elastic axial shortening of the one storey in question.
Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  APP  check kC.(DL+SDL)+LL+kC,PT.PT deflections at façade beams 
{[span/1000].C1, 20mm}, note the creep term also includes the total elastic axial shortening of the one storey
in question.
Note deflections above refer to deflections of all transfer slabs and slabs in the vicinity of transfer beams.
Note C1 = {0.8 for flanged beams, 10.0/span(m) for spans > 10.0m, 0.9 for flat slabs}. Note deflection criteria to
cl.3.4.6.3 and cl.3.4.6.4 BS8110-1 and cl.3.2.1.1 and cl.3.2.1.2 BS8110-2. Note creep factor, kc calculated from
equating (1-0.32).(1-0.4)DL+1.0SDL=kC.(DL+SDL) based on multiplying factor (1-0.32) for the total DL creep
deflection component (as opposed to the instantaneous deflection component) to (1-0.4) for the remaining 60%
component of DL creep deflection after 1 month (cl.7.3 BS8110-2), giving kC=[0.4DL+1.0SDL]/[DL+SDL]. Note
likewise creep factor, kc,PT calculated as (1-0.32/KLT.KST).(1-0.4)=0.375.
LPB LPB

LS : slab deflection check

LS LS
LSB : secondary beam
deflection check
LSB LSB
LFR LPB : primary beam deflection
LFR check

LFR : frame (column to

column) deflection check

In RC models, note if necessary, the simulation of the beneficial effect of additional reinforcement in controlling
deflections can be made by factoring down the exhibited deflections by the ratio of the modified span / effective
depth to the ratio of the basic span / effective depth (cantilever 7.0, simply supported 20.0, continuous 26.0).
8.23 Note here that in the following subsection, slab refers to transfer slab and slabs in the vicinity of transfer beams
and beam refers to transfer beam.

PT Tendon Modelling
Check tendons based on prestress force and eccentricity required for load balancing and prestress force for
average precompression.

RC or PT Design Strip Support Lines, RC or PT Design Strip Tributaries and RC or PT Design Strip
Design Sections Frequency
Check design strip support lines in X/Y directions.
Check design strip tributaries in X/Y directions and design strip design sections frequency for RC (column and
middle design strip) or PT (full tributary width design strip).

FE Analysis Method RC Analysis and Design

Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  APP  check RC analysis and design in X/Y directions
 check ULS bending effects MULS,E/E, note w.o./w. the differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent
supports.
 check ULS shear effects VULS,E/E, note w.o./w. the differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent supports.

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 12
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
RC Design Strip Design Sections FE Analysis Method Integration of Effects Analysis and RC Design
Strip Design Sections Design
Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  APP  check design strip design sections RC analysis and design in X/Y directions
 check ULS bending effects MULS,E/E based on 1.4 x tributary width x (15.0-25.0kPa) x L2/12, note w.o./w. the
differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent supports.
 check ULS shear effects VULS,E/E based on 1.4 x tributary width x (15.0-25.0kPa) x L/2, note w.o./w. the
differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent supports.
 check rebar areas (to resist ULS bending) required {As(d)1, As(d)2}, noting minimum steel.
 check ULS shear capacity, Vu is greater than ULS shear effects VULS,E/E together with the associated
required shear links Asv,req/S.
Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  Run  Slab Analysis and Design  check sufficiency of rebar (to resist ULS
bending) at all FE slab strips.

FE Analysis Method PT Analysis and Design

Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  APP  check PT analysis and design in X/Y directions
 check TLS/SLS bending effects MTLS/SLS,E/E+MTLS/SLS,E/L are minimal.
 check ULS bending effects MULS,E/E+MULS,S/E, note w.o./w. the differential elastic axial shortening of
adjacent supports.
Note by convention, +ve bending moment is sagging and –ve bending moment is hogging (consistent with
ProtaStructure).
 check TLS/SLS average precompression 0.7-2.5N/mm2 for slab and 2.5-4.5N/mm2 for beam.
 check TLS top stress f’min,t ≤ f’t ≤ f’max,t
BM:| -1.0 ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL2] | -0.25fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL3] |
FS:| -1.0 ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL2] | -0.45√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL3] |
 check TLS bottom stress f’min,b ≤ f’b ≤ f’max,b
BM:| -1.0 ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL2] | -0.25fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL3] |
FS:| -1.0 ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL2] | -0.45√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL3] |
 check SLS top stress fmin,t ≤ ft ≤ fmax,t
BM:| -0.0 ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL2] | -<.......> ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL3] |
FS:| -0.0 ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL2] | -0.45√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL3] |
Note -<.......> = MAX {-0.25fcu, (0.7-1.1).(-0.58√fcu to -0.82√fcu)-4N/mm2/1.0%}.
 check SLS bottom stress fmin,b ≤ fb ≤ fmax,b
BM:| -0.0 ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL2] | -<.......> ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL3] |
FS:| -0.0 ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL2] | -0.45√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL3] |
Note -<.......> = MAX {-0.25fcu, (0.7-1.1).(-0.58√fcu to -0.82√fcu)-4N/mm2/1.0%}.
Note by convention, +ve stress is compressive and –ve stress is tensile (consistent with ProtaStructure).

PT Design Strip Design Sections FE Analysis Method Integration of Effects Analysis and PT Design
Strip Design Sections Design
Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  APP  check design strip design sections PT analysis and design in X/Y directions
 check |TLS|=|DL+PT| deflections  {[span/500 to span/350].C1, 20mm}.
 check SLS=DL+SDL+LL+PT deflections  [span/250].C1.
 check kC.(DL+SDL)+LL+kC,PT.PT deflections  {[span/500 to span/350].C1, 20mm}, note the creep term also
includes the total elastic axial shortening of the one storey in question.
 check kC.(DL+SDL)+LL+kC,PT.PT deflections at façade beams  {[span/1000].C1, 20mm}, note the creep
term also includes the total elastic axial shortening of the one storey in question.
Note C1 = {0.8 for flanged beams, 10.0/span(m) for spans > 10.0m, 0.9 for flat slabs}. Note deflection criteria to
cl.3.4.6.3 and cl.3.4.6.4 BS8110-1 and cl.3.2.1.1 and cl.3.2.1.2 BS8110-2. Note creep factor, kc calculated from
equating 0.5.(1-0.4)DL+1.0SDL=kC.(DL+SDL) based on multiplying factor 0.5 for the total DL creep deflection
component (as opposed to the instantaneous deflection component) to (1-0.4) for the remaining 60%
component of DL creep deflection after 1 month (cl.7.3 BS8110-2), giving kC=[0.3DL+1.0SDL]/[DL+SDL]. Note
likewise creep factor, kc,PT calculated as (1-0.32/KLT.KST).(1-0.4)=0.375.
 check percentage of DL+SDL load balancing is approximately 70-100%.
 check TLS/SLS bending effects MTLS/SLS,E/E+MTLS/SLS,E/L are minimal.
 check ULS bending effects MULS,E/E+MULS,S/E based on 1.4 x tributary width x (15.0-25.0kPa) x L2/12 and
hyperstatic effects, note w.o./w. the differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent supports.
Note by convention, +ve bending moment is sagging and –ve bending moment is hogging (consistent with
ProtaStructure).
 check TLS/SLS shear effects VTLS/SLS,E/E+VTLS/SLS,E/L are minimal.
 check ULS shear effects VULS,E/E+VULS,S/E based on 1.4 x tributary width x (15.0-25.0kPa) x L/2 and
hyperstatic effects, note w.o./w. the differential elastic axial shortening of adjacent supports.
Note an arbitrary sign convention adopted for shear force (consistent with ProtaStructure).
 check TLS/SLS average precompression 0.7-2.5N/mm2 for slab and 2.5-4.5N/mm2 for beam.
 check TLS top stress f’min,t ≤ f’t ≤ f’max,t

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 13
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
BM:| -1.0 ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL2] | -0.25fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.50fci [CL3] |
FS:| -1.0 ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL2] | -0.45√fci ≤ f’t ≤ 0.24fci [CL3] |
 check TLS bottom stress f’min,b ≤ f’b ≤ f’max,b
BM:| -1.0 ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL2] | -0.25fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.50fci [CL3] |
FS:| -1.0 ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL1] | -0.36√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL2] | -0.45√fci ≤ f’b ≤ 0.33fci [CL3] |
 check SLS top stress fmin,t ≤ ft ≤ fmax,t
BM:| -0.0 ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL2] | -<.......> ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL3] |
FS:| -0.0 ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL2] | -0.45√fcu ≤ ft ≤ 0.33fcu [CL3] |
Note -<.......> = MAX {-0.25fcu, (0.7-1.1).(-0.58√fcu to -0.82√fcu)-4N/mm2/1.0%}.
 check SLS bottom stress fmin,b ≤ fb ≤ fmax,b
BM:| -0.0 ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL2] | -<.......> ≤ fb ≤ 0.40fcu [CL3] |
FS:| -0.0 ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL1] | -0.36√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL2] | -0.45√fcu ≤ fb ≤ 0.24fcu [CL3] |
Note -<.......> = MAX {-0.25fcu, (0.7-1.1).(-0.58√fcu to -0.82√fcu)-4N/mm2/1.0%}.
Note by convention, +ve stress is compressive and –ve stress is tensile (consistent with ProtaStructure).
 check rebar areas (to resist SLS tensile stress) required {As(d)1, As(d)2}, noting minimum steel.
 check ULS moment capacity, Mu is greater than ULS bending effects MULS,E/E+MULS,S/E.
 check ULS shear capacity, Vu is greater than ULS shear effects VULS,E/E+VULS,S/E together with the associated
required shear links Asv,req/S.
Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  Run  Slab Analysis and Design  check sufficiency of rebar (to resist SLS tensile
stress) at all FE slab strips.
8.24 Note here that in the following subsection, slab refers to transfer slab and slabs in the vicinity of transfer beams
and beam refers to transfer beam.

RC or PT Analysis and Design Summary Report

Check design strip design sections forces.
Check design strip design sections rebar.
Check design strip design sections moment capacities.
Check design strip design sections dimensions.
Check design strip design sections geometry.
Check tendon and rebar plans.
8.25 Manually check ULS shear stresses and shear design at beam/wall supports of transfer slabs.
8.26 Run  FEFA (CBAFE)  Run  Column Punching Check  check ULS punching shear at wall/column
supports of transfer slabs together with the associated required shear links Asv,req.
8.27 Manually check ULS shear stresses and shear design at transferred walls on transfer slabs.
8.28 Manually check ULS punching shear at transferred walls/columns on transfer slabs.
8.3 FE Model Ill-Conditioning
8.31 Building Analysis Method
Run  BA  Analysis Tab  Axial Load Comparison Report  check consistency between the applied un-
decomposed slab loads (Table 1), applied decomposed slab loads (Table 2) and the reactions presented in the
column / wall axial loads (Table 3).
Combination of Building Analysis and the FE Based Gravity Load Chase Down Method
Run  BA  Analysis Tab  Axial Load Comparison Report  check consistency between the applied un-
decomposed slab loads (Table 1) and the reactions presented in the FE analysis column / wall axial loads (Table
4).
8.4 Load Take Down
8.41 Run  BA  Analysis Tab  Axial Load Comparison Report  check SLS load  15.0-25.0kPa for typical
concrete and 10.0kPa for typical steel residential and commercial buildings (ES). Note check load take down
calculation for BA / CBAFE.
8.42 Run  BA  Post Analysis  MARD  filtering out beams to only show walls/columns, check Axial Load in all
walls/columns to visually inspect the sensibility of the load take down, e.g. only compression loads in
walls/column, no zero loads to ensure no erroneous unattached walls/columns and no tension loads to
ensure no erroneous hanging walls/columns.
St01  Active Windows Settings  Columns Plan Display Tab  Display Analysis Results Subsection  enable
display of Axial Load, Moment and Shear Force for appropriate Loading Combinations to visually display
Bottom loading effects, noting that directions 1 and 2 refer to the local axes (i.e. axis direction 1 and 2,
respectively)  check Axial Load (ensuring no uplift) for all walls/columns and Axial Load (ensuring no uplift),
Moment and Shear Force for stability walls/columns (ES but primarily above the transfer floor and foundations).
In addition for EQ combination cases, EQ base shear force for foundations to be calculated with the lateral and
vertical EQ loads in the EQ combination cases enhanced by the overstrength and multiplicative factors, Rd. as
per cl.4.4.2.6 BS EN1998-1. Note perform load take down calculation and likewise foundation SLS load
combinations reporting for BA / CBAFE.

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 14
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
8.5 Sway Susceptibility (NHF, Wind, EQ)
8.51 Run  BA  Reports Tab  check Sway Classification Report Q ≤ 0.05 for   20 for BA / CBAFE, else amplify
lateral loads (wind, EQ) with the amplified sway factor, m = /(1) to a maximum of m = 1.33 corresponding to
Q ≤ 0.25 and   4.0 as the limit of linearity of the static analysis (cl.R6.2.6 ACI 318-14).
 ULS sway susceptibility to NHF / wind load combinations should be analysed with modified default stiffness
parameters {Class 1 PT or Class 2 PT slab/beam: kE=2.0, kI=0.7, kJ=0.7; RC or Class 3 PT slab/beam:
kE=2.0, kI=0.35, kJ=0.35; wall/column: kE=2.0, kI=0.7, kJ=0.7} and other lateral load combinations (EQ)
deleted.
 ULS sway susceptibility to EQ load combinations should be analysed with modified default stiffness
parameters {Class 1 PT or Class 2 PT slab/beam: kE=2.0, kI=0.7, kJ=0.7; RC or Class 3 PT slab/beam:
kE=2.0, kI=0.35, kJ=0.35; wall/column: kE=2.0, kI=0.35, kJ=0.35} and other lateral load combinations (NHF,
wind) deleted. Further, the lateral EQ displacements from the SLS EQ load combinations are to be enhanced
by the adopted behaviour factor, q as per cl.4.3.4 BS EN1998-1.
8.6 Lateral Deflections / Torsional Twist
8.61 Run  BA  Reports Tab  Post-Analysis Checks Report  optionally check total building lateral deflections
to NHF, total ≤ Htotal/500 and relative storey drift, storey,I ≤ hstorey,I/500 (ES). NHF load combinations should be
analysed with modified default stiffness parameters {Class 1 PT or Class 2 PT slab/beam: kE=2.0, kI=1.0, kJ=1.0;
RC or Class 3 PT slab/beam: kE=2.0, kI=0.5, kJ=0.5; wall/column: kE=2.0, kI=1.0, kJ=1.0}, NHF load factors
reset to 1.0, other lateral load combinations (wind, EQ) deleted and as a last resort adopting flanged beam
sections in lieu of rectangular beam sections.
8.62 Run  BA  Post Analysis  MARD  optionally check on-plan torsional twist due to NHF indicating if the
offset between the centre of gravity / mass and centre of stiffness is ≤ span/500 (ES). NHF load combinations
should be analysed with modified default stiffness parameters {Class 1 PT or Class 2 PT slab/beam: kE=2.0,
kI=1.0, kJ=1.0; RC or Class 3 PT slab/beam: kE=2.0, kI=0.5, kJ=0.5; wall/column: kE=2.0, kI=1.0, kJ=1.0}, NHF
load factors reset to 1.0, other lateral load combinations (wind, EQ) deleted and as a last resort adopting flanged
beam sections in lieu of rectangular beam sections.
8.63 Run  BA  Reports Tab  Storey Displacements Report  check total building lateral deflections to wind,
total ≤ Htotal/500 and relative storey drift, storey,I ≤ hstorey,I/500 (ES) to cl.3.2.2.2 BS8110-2. SLS wind load
combinations should be analysed with modified default stiffness parameters {Class 1 PT or Class 2 PT slab/beam:
kE=2.0, kI=1.0, kJ=1.0; RC or Class 3 PT slab/beam: kE=2.0, kI=0.5, kJ=0.5; wall/column: kE=2.0, kI=1.0,
kJ=1.0}, wind load factors reset to 1.0, other lateral load combinations (NHF, EQ) deleted and as a last resort
adopting flanged beam sections in lieu of rectangular beam sections.
8.64 Run  BA  Post Analysis  MARD  check on-plan torsional twist due to wind indicating if the offset
between the centre of elevation and centre of stiffness is ≤ span/500 (ES). SLS wind load combinations should
be analysed with modified default stiffness parameters {Class 1 PT or Class 2 PT slab/beam: kE=2.0, kI=1.0,
kJ=1.0; RC or Class 3 PT slab/beam: kE=2.0, kI=0.5, kJ=0.5; wall/column: kE=2.0, kI=1.0, kJ=1.0}, wind load
factors reset to 1.0, other lateral load combinations (NHF, EQ) deleted and as a last resort adopting flanged
beam sections in lieu of rectangular beam sections.
8.7 Beam Design
8.76 In RC and PT models, manually perform ULS longitudinal shear check within web and between web and
flanges for heavily loaded transfer beams if ULS shear stresses are greater than those stipulated on T.5.5
BS8110-1 for BA / CBAFE. Manually perform deep beam design for the transfer beam should the span to depth
ratio be ≤ 2.0 simply-supported or 2.5 continuous (CIRIA Guide 2). Manually perform strut and tie truss analogy
design for the transferred wall (acting as the diagonal compression element) and transfer beam (acting as the
tension element).
8.77 In RC models, manually check compliance to the deflection criteria for non-prismatic beams by recalculating the
actual span / depth ratio based on the total beam span instead of the segmented beam span for BA / CBAFE
(ES).
#A
8.78 Building RC and PT beam final comprehensive design check (ES)
8.781 BA  check design  % steel << 4%    3 << 5N/mm2 
8.782 CBAFE  check design  % steel << 4%    3 << 5N/mm2 
#A Note for models with EQ loads, ULS EQ load combinations should be analysed on models with the following modified
default stiffness parameters {Class 1 PT or Class 2 PT slab/beam: kE=1.0, kI=1.0, kJ=1.0; RC or Class 3 PT slab/beam: kE=1.0,
kI=0.5, kJ=0.5; wall/column: kE=1.0, kI=0.5, kJ=0.5}.
8.79 Manual modification of RC and PT beam detailing as follows: -
(a) incorporation of outer perimeter torsion links at heavily loaded transfer beam sections.
(b) elongation of rebar and links for the portions of transfer beam beneath transferred walls.
(c) inclusion of additional shear links / hooks for very wide beams to satisfy the 150mm maximum spacing
requirement of cl.3.12.7.2 BS8110-1 noting that maximum number of closed shear links in ProtaStructure is
3 (ES).
(d) appropriate enhancement to non-prismatic beams (ES).
(e) search for single rebar specification, e.g. 1T12, 1T16, 1T20, 1T25, 1T32 or 1T40 within the beam dxfs (ES).

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 15
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

ITEM CONTENT 
(f) for models with EQ loads stabilised by moment frames, enhancement to the primary seismic beam
maximum link spacing, s should be provided based on cl.5.4.3.1.2 BS EN1998-1 (DCM) which states s =
min {beam depth / 4; 24 x link diameter; 225mm; 8 x longitudinal bar diameter} and cl.5.5.3.1.3 BS
EN1998-1 (DCH) which states s = min {beam depth / 4; 24 x link diameter; 175mm; 6 x longitudinal bar
diameter} (ES).
8.8 Wall/Column Design
8.87 Run  Column Section Design  Design Tab  Column Design Report  wall/column detailed design report
 search for {< 15.0 or > 15.0} for walls/columns that are to be correctly defined as braced and {< 10.0 or >
10.0} for walls/columns that are to be correctly defined as unbraced (ES).
#B, #C
8.88 Building wall/column final comprehensive design check (ES)
#A
8.881 BA  BS8110-1 theory  check design  % steel << 2%/5%    3 << 5N/mm2 
#A
8.882 BA  biaxial bending theory  check design  % steel << 2%/5%    3 << 5N/mm2 
#A
8.883 CBAFE  BS8110-1 theory  check design  % steel << 2%/5%    3 << 5N/mm2 
#A
8.884 CBAFE  biaxial bending theory  check design  % steel << 2%/5%    3 << 5N/mm2 
#A Note for models with EQ loads stabilised by moment frames, the maximum primary seismic column % steel is 4%, not 5%.
#B Note for models with EQ loads, ULS EQ load combinations should be analysed on models with the following modified
default stiffness parameters {Class 1 PT or Class 2 PT slab/beam: kE=1.0, kI=1.0, kJ=1.0; RC or Class 3 PT slab/beam: kE=1.0,
kI=0.5, kJ=0.5; wall/column: kE=1.0, kI=0.5, kJ=0.5}.
#C Note enhance walls/columns as appropriate for accidental loads (e.g. car park vehicular impact loads) and as
disproportionate collapse key elements.
8.89 Manual modification of wall/column detailing as follows: -
(a) manual addition of nominal through-thickness links in column-like vertical elements detailed as walls (ES).
(b) for models with EQ loads stabilised by moment frames, enhancement to the primary seismic column
maximum link spacing, s should be provided based on cl.5.4.3.2.2 BS EN1998-1 (DCM) which states s =
min {(minimum column dimension excluding cover and half link diameter) / 2; 175mm; 8 x longitudinal bar
diameter} and cl.5.5.3.2.2 BS EN1998-1 (DCH) which states s = min {(minimum column dimension
excluding cover and half link diameter) / 3; 125mm; 6 x longitudinal bar diameter} (ES).
9.0 FOUNDATION CHECKS
9.1 General
9.11 Settings  Foundation Design Settings  check Allowable Soil Stress Ultimate Strength Factor =
(1.4DL+1.4SDL+1.6LL)/(DL+SDL+LL), 1.4 being conservative.
9.2 Pad Footing
9.3 Strip Footing
9.4 Raft / Piled Raft Footing
9.5 Pile Footing
10.0 QUANTITY CHECKS
10.1 General
10.11 File  Quantity Extraction Tables  Concrete Quantity Extractions Table  check estimate of the concrete
volume (m3).
File  Quantity Extraction Tables  Formwork Quantity Table  check estimate of the formwork area (m2).
Run  ProtaDetails  check estimate of the steel / tendon quantity (kg).
10.12 In RC or PT models, check concrete quantity to typical concrete equivalent floor thicknesses (m 3/103m2)  250-
500.
In RC or PT models, check formwork quantity to typical formwork rates (m2/m2)  1.5-2.5.
In RC models, check rebar quantity to typical rebar tonnages (kg/m3)  one-way or two-way slabs 75-100, flat
slabs 125-175, transfer slabs 150-350, beams 125-250, transfer beams 150-350, walls 100, columns 150-300,
pile caps 150-200.
In PT models, check tendon quantity to typical tendon tonnages (kg/m3)  slabs 20-25, transfer slabs 20-25,
beams 40-50. In PT models, check rebar quantity to typical rebar tonnages (kg/m3)  slabs 20-35, transfer slabs
40-70, beams 40-70.

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 16
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

Appendix A: PT Permissible Stress

Permissible Stress [N/mm2] [BS8110, TR.43]

Serviceability Class 2
Serviceability Class 1 Serviceability Class 3
Flexural Tensile Stresses,
No Flexural Tensile Flexural Tensile Stresses,
Uncracked
Stresses Cracked
(No Visible Cracking)
Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom
TLS 0.50 fci #A1
0.50 fci #A1
0.50 fci #A1
0.50 fci #A1
0.50 fci #A1
0.50 fci #A1
comp
f’max,t/b 0.24 fci #A2 0.33 fci #A2
0.24 fci #A2 0.33 fci #A2
0.24 fci #A2 0.33 fci #A2

TLS -0.25 fci #B1 -0.25 fci #B1

#B #B #B #B
tensile -1.0 -1.0 -0.36 fci -0.36 fci
f’min,t/b -0.45 fci #B2 -0.45 fci #B2
SLS 0.33 fcu #C1
0.40 fcu #C1 0.33 fcu #C1
0.40 fcu #C1 0.33 fcu #C1
0.40 fcu #C1
comp #C2
fmax,t/b 0.33 fcu 0.24 fcu #C2 0.33 fcu #C2
0.24 fcu #C2 0.33 fcu #C2
0.24 fcu #C2
SLS -<.......> #D1 -<.......> #D1
#D #D #D #D
tensile -0.0 -0.0 -0.36 fcu -0.36 fcu
fmin,t/b -0.45 fcu #D2 -0.45 fcu #D2
#A1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option to cl.4.3.5.1 BS8110.
#A2: Note flat slab option to T.2 TR.43 and cl.6.10.2 TR.43.
#B: Note beam, one-way slab, two-way slab or flat slab option to cl.4.3.5.2 BS8110.
#B1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option to cl.4.3.5.2 BS8110.
#B2: Note flat slab option to T.2 TR.43 and cl.6.10.2 TR.43.
#C1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option to cl.4.3.4.2 BS8110.
#C2: Note flat slab option to T.2 TR.43.
#D: Note beam, one-way slab, two-way slab or flat slab option to cl.4.3.4.3 BS8110.
#D1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option to cl.4.3.4.3 BS8110. Note -<.......> = MAX {-0.25fcu, (0.7-1.1).(-0.58√fcu to -0.82√fcu)-
4N/mm2/1.0%} as the code allows for an increase in the tensile stress limit from 1% of longitudinal steel (untensioned reinforcement) onwards (-
4N/mm2 for every 1% of longitudinal steel (untensioned reinforcement), increasing proportionally, up to the specified upper limit of -0.25fcu).
#D2: Note flat slab option to T.2 TR.43.

Table 4.2 – Design Hypothetical Flexural Tensile Stresses for Class 3 Members [N/mm2]

Limiting Crack Width Design Stress for Concrete Grade

Group
[mm] 30 40 50

Grouted 0.1 3.2 4.1 4.8

Post-Tensioned Tendons 0.2 3.8 5.0 5.8

Table 4.3 – Depth Factors for Design Tensile Stresses for Class 3 Members

Depth of Member [mm] Factor

≤ 200 1.1
400 1.0
600 0.9
800 0.8
≥ 1000 0.7

Permissible Stress [N/mm2] [ACI318]

Serviceability Class U Serviceability Class T Serviceability Class C
Uncracked Transition Cracked
Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom
TLS
comp 0.60 fci’ #A 0.60 fci’ #A 0.60 fci’ #A 0.60 fci’ #A 0.60 fci’ #A 0.60 fci’ #A
f’max,t/b
TLS -0.30 fci’ #B1 -0.30 fci’ #B1
#B #B #B #B
tensile -0.25 fci’ -0.25 fci’ -0.25 fci’ -0.25 fci’
f’min,t/b -0.50 fci’ #B2 -0.50 fci’ #B2

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 17
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

SLS
comp 0.60 fc’ #C 0.60 fc’ #C 0.60 fc’ #C 0.60 fc’ #C 0.60 fc’ #C 0.60 fc’ #C
fmax,t/b
SLS -0.62 fc’ #D1
-0.62 fc’ #D1
-1.00 fc’ #D1
-1.00 fc’ #D1
-0.30 fc’ #D1 -0.30 fc’ #D1
tensile
fmin,t/b -0.50 fc’ #D2
-0.50 fc’ #D2
-0.50 fc’ #D2
-0.50 fc’ #D2
-0.50 fc’ #D2 -0.50 fc’ #D2
#A: Note beam, one-way slab, two-way slab or flat slab option to cl.24.5.3.1 ACI318.
#B: Note beam, one-way slab, two-way slab or flat slab option to cl.24.5.3.2 ACI318.
#B1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option analogous to cl.4.3.5.2 BS8110.
#B2: Note flat slab option to cl.24.5.3.2.1 ACI318.
#C: Note beam, one-way slab, two-way slab or flat slab option to cl.24.5.4.1 ACI318.
#D1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option to cl.24.5.2.1 ACI318 and analogous to cl.4.3.4.3 BS8110.
#D2: Note flat slab option to cl.24.5.2.1 ACI318.

Permissible Stress [N/mm2] [AS3600]

Serviceability Class U Serviceability Class T Serviceability Class C
Uncracked Transition Cracked
Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom
TLS
comp 0.50 fci’ #A 0.50 fci’ #A 0.50 fci’ #A 0.50 fci’ #A 0.50 fci’ #A 0.50 fci’ #A
f’max,t/b
TLS -0.30 fci’ #B1 -0.30 fci’ #B1
#B #B #B #B
tensile -0.25 fci’ -0.25 fci’ -0.60 fci’ -0.60 fci’
f’min,t/b -0.60 fci’ #B2 -0.60 fci’ #B2
SLS
comp 0.50 fc’ #C 0.50 fc’ #C 0.50 fc’ #C 0.50 fc’ #C 0.50 fc’ #C 0.50 fc’ #C
fmax,t/b
SLS -0.30 fc’ #D1 -0.30 fc’ #D1
#D #D #D #D
tensile -0.25 fc’ -0.25 fc’ -0.60 fc’ -0.60 fc’
fmin,t/b -0.60 fc’ #D2 -0.60 fc’ #D2
#A: Note beam, one-way slab, two-way slab or flat slab option to cl.8.1.6.2 AS3600.
#B: Note beam, one-way slab, two-way slab or flat slab option to cl.8.6.2 and cl.9.4.2 AS3600.
#B1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option analogous to cl.4.3.5.2 BS8110.
#B2: Note flat slab option to cl.9.4.2 AS3600.
#C: Note beam, one-way slab, two-way slab or flat slab option to cl.8.1.6.2 AS3600.
#D: Note beam, one-way slab, two-way slab or flat slab option to cl.8.6.2 and cl.9.4.2 AS3600.
#D1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option analogous to cl.4.3.4.3 BS8110.
#D2: Note flat slab option to cl.9.4.2 AS3600 as an alternative to cl.6.9.5.3 AS3600.

Permissible Stress [N/mm2] [EC2 and TR.43-2]

Serviceability Class U Serviceability Class T Serviceability Class C
Uncracked Transition Cracked
Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom
TLS 0.50 fci’ #A1 0.50 fci’ #A1
0.50 fci’ #A1 0.50 fci’ #A1
0.50 fci’ #A1 0.50 fci’ #A1
comp
f’max,t/b 0.30 fci’ #A2 0.40 fci’ #A2
0.30 fci’ #A2 0.40 fci’ #A2
0.30 fci’ #A2 0.40 fci’ #A2

TLS -0.21 fci’2/3 #B1

-0.21 fci’2/3 #B1
-0.21 fci’2/3 #B1
-0.21 fci’2/3 #B1
-0.30 fci’ #B1 -0.30 fci’ #B1
tensile
f’min,t/b -0.09 fci’2/3 #B2
-0.09 fci’2/3 #B2
-0.09 fci’2/3 #B2
-0.09 fci’2/3 #B2
-0.27 fci’2/3 #B2 -0.27 fci’2/3 #B2
SLS 0.60 fc’ #C1 0.60 fc’ #C1
0.60 fc’ #C1 0.60 fc’ #C1
0.60 fc’ #C1 0.60 fc’ #C1
comp
fmax,t/b 0.40 fc’ #C2 0.30 fc’ #C2
0.40 fc’ #C2 0.30 fc’ #C2
0.40 fc’ #C2 0.30 fc’ #C2

SLS -0.21 fc’2/3 #D1

-0.21 fc’2/3 #D1
-0.21 fc’2/3 #D1
-0.21 fc’2/3 #D1
-<.......> #D2 -<.......> #D2
tensile
fmin,t/b -0.09 fc’2/3 #D3
-0.09 fc’2/3 #D3
-0.09 fc’2/3 #D3
-0.09 fc’2/3 #D3
-0.27 fc’2/3 #D3 -0.27 fc’2/3 #D3
#A1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option to cl.5.8.2 TR.43-2.
#A2: Note flat slab option to T.4 TR.43-2 and cl.5.8.2 TR.43-2.
#B1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option to cl.8.5.2 TR.43-2 and analogous to cl.4.3.5.2 BS8110.
#B2: Note flat slab option to T.4 TR.43-2 and cl.5.8.2 TR.43-2.
#C1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option to cl.5.10.2.2 EC2.
#C2: Note flat slab option to T.4 TR.43-2.
#D1: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option analogous to cl.5.8.2 TR.43-2.
#D2: Note beam, one-way slab or two-way slab option to cl.5.8.1 TR.43-2. Note -<.......> = MAX {-0.30fc’, (-0.40fc’2/3 to -0.50fc’2/3)-
4N/mm2/1.0%} as the code allows for an increase in the tensile stress limit from 1% of longitudinal steel (untensioned reinforcement) onwards (-
4N/mm2 for every 1% of longitudinal steel (untensioned reinforcement), increasing proportionally, up to the specified upper limit of -0.30fc’).
#D3: Note flat slab option to T.4 TR.43-2.

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 18
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

Appendix B: PT Prestress Strand Types

s As Ep fpk Fpk
PT Prestress Strand Types
[mm] [mm2] [GPa] [N/mm2] [kN]
[ASTM A416] Grade 270 s = 12.7mm Strand 12.70 98.71 186.0 1860 183.7
[ASTM A416] Grade 270 s = 15.24mm Strand 15.24 140.00 186.0 1860 260.7
[BS5896] 7-Wire Super s = 12.9mm Strand 12.90 100.00 195.0 1860 186.0
[BS5896] 7-Wire Super s = 15.7mm Strand 15.70 150.00 195.0 1860 279.0

Appendix C: PT Tendon Duct Dimensions

PT Tendon Ducts Horizontal DT,H and Vertical DT,V External Dimensions

Maximum
Number of
Default for 0.5” Default for 0.6”
Prestress Remark
Strands Strands
Strands in Each
Tendon, Ns
DT,H DT,V DT,H DT,V
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
3 55 23 55 23 Default refers to flat ducts
5 75 23 90 23 Default refers to flat ducts
7 55 55 70 70 Default refers to round ducts
12 80 80 85 85 Default refers to round ducts
19 95 95 100 100 Default refers to round ducts
27 100 100 115 115 Default refers to round ducts
37 115 115 135 135 Default refers to round ducts
42 125 125 145 145 Default refers to round ducts

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 19
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

Appendix D: RC or PT Load Combination Cases

Load Load Factor

Description
Combo PT HYP DL SDL LL WLX WLY NHLX NHLY
Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
ULS01 1.4DL+1.4SDL+1.6LL+HYP #A, #B  1.0 1.4 1.4 1.6    
 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2   1.0 
ULS02 1.2DL+1.2SDL+1.2LL±1.0NHL+HYP #C
 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2    1.0
 1.0 1.4 1.4  1.4   
ULS03 1.4DL+1.4SDL±1.4WL+HYP
 1.0 1.4 1.4   1.4  
 1.0 1.0 1.0  1.4   
ULS04 1.0DL+1.0SDL±1.4WL+HYP
 1.0 1.0 1.0   1.4  
 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2   
ULS05 1.2DL+1.2SDL+1.2LL±1.2WL+HYP
 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2  1.2  
Transfer Limit State (TLS)
TLS01 1.0DL+1.15PT #D 1.15  1.0      
Serviceability Limit State (SLS)
SLS01 1.0DL+1.0SDL+1.0LL+PT 1.0  1.0 1.0 1.0    
1.0  1.0 1.0 1.0   1.0 
SLS02 1.0DL+1.0SDL+1.0LL±1.0NHL+PT
1.0  1.0 1.0 1.0    1.0
1.0  1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0   
SLS03 1.0DL+1.0SDL+1.0LL±1.0WL+PT
1.0  1.0 1.0 1.0  1.0  
#A Note that it is ensured that the construction load combination 1.0CL is less onerous than ULS01.
#B Note that pattern loading cases are applied to load combination ULS01.
#C Note that the load combination case 1.4DL+1.4SDL±1.0NHL+HYP not applied since it is deemed to be always less onerous than
1.2DL+1.2SDL+1.2LL±1.0NHL+HYP. This will be the case always as long as [DL+SDL]/[DL+SDL+LL] ≤ 0.85.
#D Note that for transfer storeys, the TLS load combination case only considers the self-weight of the particular storey (and not the self-
weight from any upper storey) in its dead load case, DL.

Load Load Factor

Description
Combo PT HYP DL SDL LL EQX EQY EQZ

Ultimate Limit State (ULS)

 1.0 1.0 1.0 2i 1.0  

EQ 1.0DL+1.0SDL+2iLL1.0EQX+HYP
ULS01 1.0DL+1.0SDL+2iLL1.0EQY+HYP
 1.0 1.0 1.0 2i  1.0 

1.0DL+1.0SDL+2iLL+HYP 2i 1.0 0.3 0.3

 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0EQX0.3EQY0.3EQZ
EQ 1.0DL+1.0SDL+2iLL+HYP
 1.0 1.0 1.0 2i 0.3 1.0 0.3
ULS02 0.3EQX1.0EQY0.3EQZ
1.0DL+1.0SDL+2iLL+HYP
 1.0 1.0 1.0 2i 0.3 0.3 1.0
0.3EQX0.3EQY1.0EQZ

Serviceability Limit State (SLS)

1.0  1.0 1.0 2i 1.0  

EQ 1.0DL+1.0SDL+2iLL1.0EQX+PT #A
SLS01 1.0DL+1.0SDL+2iLL1.0EQY+PT #A
1.0  1.0 1.0 2i  1.0 

EQ 1.0DL+1.0SDL+2iLL+PT 1.0  1.0 1.0 2i 1.0 0.3 0.3

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 20
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

SLS02 1.0EQX0.3EQY0.3EQZ #A 1.0  1.0 1.0 2i 0.3 1.0 0.3

1.0DL+1.0SDL+2iLL+PT
0.3EQX1.0EQY0.3EQZ #A
1.0DL+1.0SDL+2iLL+PT 1.0  1.0 1.0 2i 0.3 0.3 1.0
0.3EQX0.3EQY1.0EQZ #A
#A Note that the lateral EQ loads in the EQ SLS combination cases here are not enhanced by the adopted behaviour factor, q as per cl.4.3.4
BS EN1998-1 as these EQ SLS combinations are required for PT SLS design and also represent the foundation load combination cases. The
evaluation of EQ deflections should be based on an amplified (by the factor q) deflection value instead.

Appendix E: RC or PT Design Strip Design Sections Equivalent Frame Method Integration of Effects Analysis vs FE
Analysis Method Integration of Effects Analysis

RC or PT Design Strip Design Sections RC or PT Design Strip Design Sections FE

Equivalent Frame Method Integration of Analysis Method Integration of Effects
Effects Analysis Analysis

Does not consider the flat slab hogging moment Does consider the flat slab hogging moment stress
stress concentrations, unconservatively concentrations, conservatively

Does not inherently consider external loads and Does inherently consider external loads and
tendons outside of the design strip (but still offers tendons outside of the design strip (but still offers
an effect), unconservatively an effect), conservatively

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 21
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

Appendix F: PT Additional Detailing Requirements

The following additional detailing requirements are required: -

(i) the provision of minimum longitudinal steel (untensioned reinforcement) for unbonded tendon construction
[cl.6.10.6 TR.43]

(ii) the provision of flexural and restraining longitudinal and transverse steel (untensioned reinforcement) near
restraining walls

(iii) the provision of longitudinal and transverse steel (untensioned reinforcement) between tendon anchorages at flat
slab edges [cl.6.13 TR.43]
 parallel to the edge, untensioned and/or tensioned reinforcement to resist the ULS bending moment for a
continuous slab spanning la, which is the centre to centre distance between (groups of) anchorages, evenly
distributed across a width of 0.7la should be provided, and
 perpendicular to the edge, untensioned reinforcement greater than 0.13%bh and 1/4 x parallel
reinforcement, evenly distributed between the anchorages and extending MAX(la,0.7la+anchorage) should
be provided

(iv) the provision of minimum longitudinal steel (untensioned reinforcement) at column positions for all flat slabs of at
least 0.075% of the gross concrete cross-sectional area, concentrated between lines that are 1.5 times the slab
depth either side of the width of the column and extending 0.2L into the span, L [cl.6.10.6 TR.43]

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 22
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

Appendix G: PT Dual-Cast Construction

Dual-cast construction may be simplistically simulated by: -

(i) first, performing the first-cast PT structural analysis after

 modelling the structure corresponding to the first-cast (e.g. a transfer storey structure with a reduced
initial thickness without any upper storey superstructure walls that may provide a stiffening effect)
 modelling the PT tendons corresponding to the first-cast only whilst excluding that of the second-cast
(e.g. a transfer storey structure with PT tendons within the first-cast initial thickness only)
 applying external superimposed dead and live loads corresponding to the first-cast (e.g. a transfer storey
structure with external self-weight of the additional second cast included as superimposed dead load and
construction live load)
 defining a standard TLS load combination case, e.g. 1.0S+1.15PT
 defining standard SLS/ULS load combination cases with PT load combination cases

(ii) second, performing the first-cast PT design TLS/SLS/ULS checks whilst

 recording the representative SLS stress at bottom face which should be positive (i.e. compressive) for
the dual-cast construction method to be effective, however negative (i.e. tensile) stresses should be
considered and recorded if indeed that is the case (noting that by convention, positive stress is
compressive and negative stress is tensile)

(iii) third, performing the second-cast PT structural analysis after

 modelling the structure corresponding to the second-cast (e.g. a transfer storey structure with an
increased final thickness and upper storey superstructure walls potentially providing a stiffening effect)
 modelling the PT tendons corresponding to the second-cast only whilst excluding that of the first-cast
(e.g. a transfer storey structure with PT tendons within the second-cast final thickness only)
 modelling the additional first-cast PT tendon area as equivalent [factored by fpk/fy] bottom longitudinal
steel (untensioned reinforcement) area for the PT design ULS bending and shear checks, although for any
quantity take-off purposes, the second-cast bottom longitudinal steel (untensioned reinforcement) quantity
should then be factored down and for completion, the second-cast PT tendon quantity factored up to
include the first-cast PT tendon quantity
 applying external dead, superimposed dead and live loads corresponding to the second-cast (e.g. a
transfer storey structure with external dead, superimposed dead and live loads from the particular storey
and all upper storeys)
 defining a non-standard TLS load combination case to exclude the beneficial effect (of counteracting the
prestressing equivalent load) of the self-weight of the second-cast structure section which can no longer be
considered as it has already been considered in the bending of the first-cast structure section, e.g.
0.0S+1.15PT, noting that all transfer storeys should thus be designated as such so that the dead load
(self-weight of the structure) case, S within the TLS load combination case (thus defined when the type of
load combination case is designated by the user as initial) will refer to the self-weight of only the
particular storey (and not the self-weight from any upper storey)
 defining standard SLS/ULS load combination cases with PT load combination cases, noting that the effect
of the self-weight of the second-cast structure section can conservatively be double-counted, the effect
being marginal in practice as it would be resisted by the full second-cast structure section elastic section
modulus Zt/b and would form only a fraction of the full SLS load combination cases whilst ensuring that the
correct external load effects are maintained for presentation purposes and other PT design SLS/ULS checks

(iv) fourth, performing the second-cast PT design TLS/SLS/ULS checks whilst

 subtracting the recorded first-cast representative SLS stress at bottom face from the criteria fmin'/fmin and
fmax'/fmax

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 23
FEM Design Verification Checklist for ProtaStructure 2016 (Summary)

Appendix H: PT Multi-Stage Stressing

Multi-stage stressing may be simplistically simulated by: -

(i) first,
 modelling the structure corresponding to the first stressing stage, STG(i=1) (e.g. a transfer storey
structure with a reduced total number of upper storeys above the transfer storey)
 modelling the PT tendons corresponding to the first stressing stage, STG(i=1) (e.g. a transfer storey
structure with a reduced total number of PT tendons)
 applying external superimposed dead and live loads corresponding to the first stressing stage, STG(i=1)
(e.g. a transfer storey structure with external loads consistent with the reduced total number of upper
storeys above the transfer storey)
 defining a standard TLS load combination case, e.g. 1.0S+1.15PT, noting that all transfer storeys
should thus be designated as such so that the dead load (self-weight of the structure) case, S within the
TLS load combination case (thus defined when the type of load combination case is designated by the user
as initial) will refer to the self-weight of only the particular storey (and not the self-weight from any upper
storey)
 defining standard SLS/ULS load combination cases with PT load combination cases
 performing the PT structural analysis
 performing the PT design TLS/SLS/ULS checks corresponding to the first stressing stage, STG(i=1)

(ii) second,
 modelling the structure corresponding to the second stressing stage, STG(i=2) (e.g. a transfer storey
structure with an increased total number of upper storeys above the transfer storey)
 modelling the PT tendons corresponding to the second stressing stage, STG(i=2) (e.g. a transfer storey
structure with an increased total number of PT tendons)
 applying external superimposed dead and live loads corresponding to the second stressing stage, STG(i=2)
(e.g. a transfer storey structure with external loads consistent with the increased total number of upper
storeys above the transfer storey)
 defining a non-standard TLS load combination case to include the effects of the self-weight from the
upper storeys corresponding to the preceding stressing stage (pre-calculated and applied as superimposed
dead load), e.g. 1.0S+1.0SUPPER STOREYS OF STG(i=1)+1.15PT
 defining standard SLS/ULS load combination cases with PT load combination cases
 performing the PT structural analysis
 performing the PT design TLS/SLS/ULS checks corresponding to the second stressing stage, STG(i=2)

(iii) third and thereafter, repeating the second step corresponding to the third and thereafter stressing stages, STG(i=3,
4, 5, etc.)

© MV | 10 Nov 2016 P a g e | 24