Jump to content

BAZ

Super Moderator
  • Content count

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    102

BAZ last won the day on May 12

BAZ had the most liked content!

About BAZ

  • Rank
    Major

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rawalpindi
  • University
    NUST, Politecnico Di torino
  • Employer
    CIIT
  • Interests
    structural engineering,cricket,football,economics and films/music.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,305 profile views
  1. I posted the query because I recently read two articles: one is FOUNDATIONS FOR SHEAR WALL STRUCTURES by J.R. Binney and T Paulay, and the other one FOUNDATIONS FOR CAPACITY DESIGNED S T R U C T U R E S by P.W. Taylor and R.L. Williams. @Rana : This is not enough. These details ensure the development of column hinge at the bottom if it is possible. And that "if" depends on the soil-structure interaction and the strength of the soil. If the soil is strong enough to resist bearing pressure corresponding to forces (axial load + moment) that it may experience when the column will be in inelastic range (capacity design approach), and if you have designed the footing for the moment that it may experience when hinge (capacity design approach) will form in the column, which is, of course, greater than the moment that you will get from ETABS for the design Earthquake, then the hinge will form in the column. If the above scenario is not feasible then you may proportion the footing to allow the rocking behavior so that energy may be dissipated provided footing rotation is in permissible limits, which will depend on the soil-rotation relationship. @umer: In MAT, or other connected foundation types, the third option is to allow nonlinear behavior in the foundation. In that case, the foundation should be detailed for attaining necessary ductility levels. These things are not discussed in the ACI code. I have not read these things in RCC books as well.
  2. Does anyone practice the design philosophy that ensures the formation of plastic hinges at the bottom of the column, near the foundation, for isolated footing?
  3. 2D-Plate Analysis -Safe

    Yes, 2D plate analysis should be used. 3D analysis will give wrong results as the raft has confinement on all sides. If you are using the 3D analysis, then you must add lateral springs as well to get better results.
  4. PICKED UP RC COLUMNS

    Transfer slab/beam, and their supporting members, requires to be detailed for the forces resulting from the inelastic response of pick -up the column.
  5. Below is an excerpt from the document titled: Seismic Design of ReinforcedConcrete Mat Foundations. The document is prepared by NEHRP. Earthquake load effects, E, are defned in ASCE 7-10 §12.4.Inherent in the defnition of these seismic demand levels is thestructural response modifcation factor, R, which is dependenton the type of lateral force-resisting system considered for thesuperstructure. The same overturning that is determined at thebase of the superstructure is to be applied directly to the matfoundation. Consideration of higher foundation demand levelsis triggered only by unusual structural geometries, such as acantilever column system or a discontinuous lateral system,which require the consideration of a system overstrength factor,per ASCE 7-10 §12.4.3. By defining earthquake load effects with an inherent R-value, some inelastic behavior is assumed in the superstructure and therefore implies that a mat foundation also may experience inelastic demands. You can also study the document in this link: bulletin.nzsee.org.nz/13/2/0171
  6. Design For Shear And Torsion Using Etabs

    When you are analyzing RCC frame members, you are concerned with flexural and shear demands in most cases, if serviceability and stability concerns have been addressed. The choice of modifier for torsional stiffness does not effect those results. Choosing the modifier equal to 0.001 will lead to conservative results if your modelling the slab for serviceability and strength-checks. As far as designing the beam for Tcr, in case of compatibility torsion, the code clearly directs the engineer to do that, as you have mentioned in your post..
  7. Looks like the accident during construction operation rather than the structural failure.
  8. *Comments/Observations regarding modelling in ETABS* *Doc No: 10-00-CD-0006* *Date: May 06, 2017* Some of the observations made during extraction of results from ETABS (v 9.7.4), for design of reinforced concrete members, are being share in this article., 1) Minimum Eccentricity ETABS always considers the minimum eccentricity for selecting the design moment of columns irrespective of the probable behavior of the column, whether short or long column. See section 10.10.6.5 and its commentary of ACI 318-08 which deals with minimum eccentricity of long columns. You should always check the design moments that ETABS uses for columns if you want to bring down the cost of construction. 2) Unbraced/ Braced Preference ETABS always performs analysis of frame as if it is un-braced. You should investigate if the storey under consideration is braced, or un-braced (10.10.5.2), and decide appropriate design moments of columns. 3) Time Period ETABS has a tendency to select a time period of the building that is considerably less than the value obtained by the approximate method, Method A, of the section 1630.2.2 of UBC 97. To quote the FEMA 451 document: ''Because this formula is based on lower bound regression analysis of measured building response in California, it will generally result in periods that are lower (hence, more conservative for use in predicting base shear) than those computed from a more rigorous mathematical model". So, there is no need to use the value of time period that is lot less than Ta. One should always check the time period used by the software; ETABS can overestimate the seismic force by more than 2 times. Method A gives lower T and higher V, so FEMA 451 has advised not to use the value of time period less than this value even if rigorous analysis gives a lower value. I have seen the results where Etabs have use the value of time period less than Ta; in-fact as low as 0.5Ta, which can increase the base shear two times. (For a complete discussion on time period, please see the following this thread that complements this section). 4) Stiffness Modifiers First thing is related to modelling the bending stiffness of flexural members, for strength level loads, that is representative of their condition near failure. The ACI code specifies the modifier of 0.35 on gross moment of inertia to represent its condition at yielding. Some people say that the factor should be multiplied by 2 to represent the stiffness of T-beam. This approach would be justified if you are not taking into the account the out of plan bending stiffness of slab. But, ETABS does include the out of plane bending stiffness if you have modelled the slab by using shell elements. So, a factor of 0.7 would overestimate the stiffness of your structure in this case, and will lead to under-design. If one has used the modifier of 0.35 in ETABS for beams in beam-slab floor system, then what value should be adopted for slab? It should not be 0.25, as this value has been specified for flat plates and flat sab floor system. If one is using some value of modifier for out of plane bending stiffness on shells, then the share of the bending moment in beams will be reduced accordingly. This approach is correct if one will be providing the reinforcement in column strips of slab. But, if you are providing reinforcement in slab in the direction perpendicular to supports only, i.e. beams, as is the general practice in Pakistan, then you are under-estimating the flexural demand in beams. Now, there is also a question of factors to be used while deciding the amount of reinforcement required in beams, columns and shear walls. If you are using factors 0.35 for beams and shear walls, and 0.7 for columns, then you are finding out the demand in members at the point of yielding, and this conforms to the code. But, this also means that the structure might experience unacceptable cracks widths. So, if you are using 0.35 for calculating the demand at strength-level forces, then you should also perform crack-control-check at service-level loads by using the factor of 1. If you are calculating the strength-level demand with a modifier of 1 for all structural members, after you have decided the location and the number of shear walls with modifier of 0.35, then you are overestimating seismic forces, as you are underestimating the time-period. But, the structural performance will improve. This article is based on my two separate posts regarding the subject matter. You can view the discussion on the items raised above by viewing the following links: 1) http://www.sepakistan.com/topic/2008-issues-in-etabs-results/ 2) http://www.sepakistan.com/topic/2290-modelling-issuesconsideration-in-etabs/ Thanks.
  9. Beam/column Capacity

    For newer version, go to Design --------> Concrete Frame design --------> View/Revise Preferences
  10. Beam/column Capacity

    Select the seismic design category by going to the "options" drop down menu.
  11. What do you intend to include in additional live load?
  12. ACI Code has not specified any stain-range for under reinforced beams. They just say that the beam should fail in tension before failure of compression region. By that definition, the tensile strain in steel must have a value of more than 0.002 before the compression strain in concrete reaches 0.003 for under-reinforced section.
  13. I want to comment on some modelling issues in ETABS. Though some of these things are discussed elsewhere in the forum, I hope to extract some more useful conclusions. First thing is related to modelling the bending stiffness of flexural members, for strength level loads, that is representative of their condition near failure. The ACI code specifies the modifier of 0.35 on gross moment of inertia to represent its condition at yielding. Some people say that the factor should be multiplied by 2 to represent the stiffness of T-beam. This approach would be justified if you are not taking into the account the out of plan bending stiffness of slab. But, ETABS does include the out of plane bending stiffness if you have modelled the slab by using shell elements. So, a factor of 0.7 would overestimate the stiffness of your structure in this case, and will lead to under-design. If one has used the modifier of 0.35 in ETABS for beams in beam-slab floor system, then what value should be adopted for slab? It should not be 0.25, as this value has been specified for flat plates and flat sab floor system. If one is using some value of modifier for out of plane bending stiffness on shells, then the share of the bending moment in beams will be reduced accordingly. This approach is correct if one will be providing the reinforcement in column strips of slab. But, if you are providing reinforcement in slab in the direction perpendicular to supports only, i.e. beams, as is the general practice in Pakistan, then you are under-estimating the flexural demand in beams. Now, there is also a question of factors to be used while deciding the amount of reinforcement required in beams, columns and shear walls. If you are using factors 0.35 for beams and shear walls, and 0.7 for columns, then you are finding out the demand in members at the point of yielding, and this conforms to the code. But, this also means that the structure might experience unacceptable cracks widths. So, if you are using 0.35 for calculating the demand at strength-level forces, then you should also perform crack-control-check at service-level loads by using the factor of 1. If you are calculating the strength-level demand with a modifier of 1 for all structural members, after you have decided the location and the number of shear walls with modifier of 0.35, then you are overestimating seismic forces, as you are underestimating the time-period. But, the structural performance will improve.
  14. After running the analysis, one way is to look for the symbol that is used for displaying the deformed shape of your structure. The deformed shape will be displayed against a load case, or load combination. Once you have deformed shape, right click on the node where you want displacements. Limits are already discussed in the forum. Use the search facility, either on google, or in the forum.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.