Jump to content
  • Welcome to SEFP!

    Welcome!

    Welcome to our community forums, full of great discussions about Structural Engineering. Please register to become a part of our thriving group or login if you are already registered.

Issue With My Results In Etabs Model


abdulqadeer29
 Share

Recommended Posts

sir,

i have several issues wid result of my model.......it iz giving me a large deflection in x direction, i have few limitations in introducing shear walls , i appled few shear walls bt still rezlts are nt in permissible limits, and secondly i am getting a large %age rft in bottom column , and thn getting ony 1 % after 2nd story,,,,i am confused whether there is sum issue wid model or sth else,

i have checked manually base reactions, and it also comes quite higher in center columns...why, i dont knw....kindly help me out ?

sir i tried to upload my model bt getting above error....

G-15 NEW.EDB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your model looks okay, but following are some of my concerns

apply torsion modifier for beams = 0.35

slab modifier are not applied...make them m11=m12=m22=0.25, this will increase your sawy too

story8 slab load above grid 6 is not applied

story2 and story 8 diaphgram extent misses some external points...look at that

make sure your load combination are okay

​wall meshing is missing in your model....mesh them

your base-shear is equal to about 5% of seismic weight which seems okay with R=5.5 and UBC 2B seismic zone

You dont have to worry about the magnitude as far as you satisify the seismic drift limits of UBC which are 0.025 and 0.020 times story height...based on time period of your building....remember to convert your elastic displacement values to inelastic displacement by mulitplying it to 0.7xR

also check the building separation gap, if necessary

again, make sure your load combinations are okay!

one last thing: incease the column cross section, for 8 storey building in 2B zone, they look smaller...increase the size...to reduce your reinforcement from 3%...make them to 2 or 1.5%....

rest your model is okay apart from above points of concern

good luck..keep us updated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sir,

i have several issues wid result of my model.......it iz giving me a large deflection in x direction, i have few limitations in introducing shear walls , i appled few shear walls bt still rezlts are nt in permissible limits, and secondly i am getting a large %age rft in bottom column , and thn getting ony 1 % after 2nd story,,,,i am confused whether there is sum issue wid model or sth else,

i have checked manually base reactions, and it also comes quite higher in center columns...why, i dont knw....kindly help me out ?

sir i tried to upload my model bt getting above error....

G-15 NEW.EDB

You aren't permitted to upload this kind of fil

What do you mean by few limitations introducing shear walls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

after analysis of this file it shows these warning

* * * W A R N I N G * * *

THE SOLUTION LOST 6.1 DIGITS OF ACCURACY FOR DOF UZ OF JOINT 10431

LOCATED AT X = 1975.750, Y = 519.000000, Z = 132.000000,

STIFFNESS MATRIX DIAGONAL VALUE = 3.9204E+09

why such errors occur and what to do then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are many reasons for these errors..you should not let it happen

for example

extrude your model and check if your geometry is okay...some times...1000m is put instead of 1000mm in section properties making very stiff elements with flexible

check if out of plane modifiers are applied to membrane

check if base is properly restrained...some times like in springs..vertical restraint is provided but not horizontal

if your struc is 2d make sure to analyze it in 2d not in 3d in analyze>analysis options menu

check if vertical elements are not accidently deleted in mid stories distrubing the load path

check if very thin shells are modelled...

and so on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sir rana, i chcked my load combo;s and made few changes according to code, just i have deleted few extra combo;s whch z nt ioncluded in ubc 97, but etab automatically generate them...sir but ma issue is,in this case allowable deflection is 2.64 in so now if ma drifts are okay .but ma deflections are slightly higher than allowable, will it be okay to gao ahead wid that....and sir wether we have to aplly 0.25 for slabs , as in code it z just for the case of flat plate and flat slab..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it is shell you will apply 0.25 for slabs....as long as you have drifts less than allowable its ok..but what do you mean by deflections slighly more than allowable? where did you find in code which tells about seismic allowable DEFLECTIONS? instead of drifts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sir, in section 1613 of ubc 97, it is mentioned that the deflection of any structural member shall not exceed the value set forth in table 16D. which iz l/360....

and sir i am gng to upload ma revised model...kindly gve a look to ths one as well....

G-15 NEW..fi n.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and sir Etab generate few load combinations which are not in code...so i deleted them during ma analysis....but i am confused that why Etab generate 26 load combo's but in code they are just 14 for this case....

1.2D + 1.0E (1612.2.1)

so from above equation , i conclude that we have to include only positive cases for earth quake but in etab , -ive sign is also there ....

but in code +ve and -ve is only for this expression.....0.9D + 1.0E and 0.9D -1.0E

need ur comments???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and sir Etab generate few load combinations which are not in code...so i deleted them during ma analysis....but i am confused that why Etab generate 26 load combo's but in code they are just 14 for this case....

1.2D + 1.0E (1612.2.1)

so from above equation , i conclude that we have to include only positive cases for earth quake but in etab , -ive sign is also there ....

but in code +ve and -ve is only for this expression.....0.9D + 1.0E and 0.9D -1.0E

need ur comments???

You need to consider for both positive and negative (both directions) for a given X and Y unless your building is symmetrical and you plan to mirror results if you want to use +ve load combo only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

update: 19.02.2014

Read about equilibrium nd compatibility torsion. You have to determine which case you have, if it is equilibrium torsion you cannot releaee torsion so your modifier will be 1.0 like in a cantilever slab or hollow core slab supporting beams because if you will release torsion it will redistribute to slab and as in equilibrium torsion there is no redistribution possible so you cant release torsion. But in case of compatibility torsion you can release torsion and it will redistribute. Si you can make its modifier equal to 0.35 but uf you make it 0.01 make sure there is no excess cracking in slab and you design slab for increased moments...thats why code does not explicitly tells u abt torsion modifier because it depends on case to case.

 

Value of equilibrium torsion is not affected by the modifier so always apply 0.1 or 0.35 or whatever for torsion modifier whatever the case is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sir rana, i chcked my load combo;s and made few changes according to code, just i have deleted few extra combo;s whch z nt ioncluded in ubc 97, but etab automatically generate them...sir but ma issue is,in this case allowable deflection is 2.64 in so now if ma drifts are okay .but ma deflections are slightly higher than allowable, will it be okay to gao ahead wid that....and sir wether we have to aplly 0.25 for slabs , as in code it z just for the case of flat plate and flat slab..

if it is shell you will apply 0.25 for slabs....as long as you have drifts less than allowable its ok..but what do you mean by deflections slighly more than allowable? where did you find in code which tells about seismic allowable DEFLECTIONS? instead of drifts!

For stiffness modifiers to slabs,

If your framing is such that you don't have Stiff Beams (beams normally > 3*Depth of slab), you will see a lot of difference when you apply and don't apply stiffness modifiers. Consider flat plates, where you have thick slabs on periphery beam. Now when you don't apply stiffness modifiers to such a case, you get less moment in you beam as more load is transferred by the slab to the column, and slab is considerably thick and has a reasonable stiffness relative to the beam which is supporting it.

For the same case when you apply a modifier, the slab stiffness is reduced and more load in transferred to your beams which are now stiffer than your slab because of the modifier.

Why should we use a stiffness modifier? for the above example, a flat plate would have some sort of cracking when subject to seismic loading and because of that the stiffness would be reduced, as a result the beams would be carrying higher load than they were actually supposed to take(considering if the original design was based on no stiffness modification for slab). Thus by using modifiers for this case, a structural engineer is able to consider the effect of heavy loaded beams and designs beams to a greater load. Therefore, using stiffness modifiers where there is a reason can help you design robust structures.

What I am trying to say is that for slabs like 4", 5" the difference in moments is very small for the cases with or without modifiers if the beams are deep. Don't worry too much about using modifiers unless you have a condition that demands one. Just, plug your numbers in and do your analysis as for most of the general cases, the difference due to modifiers would be close to nothing as explained above. Every thread I go, people are confused about them. Dont worry that much, just use the default numbers and be cautious of situations like the one explained above where you really need them.

@Rana, why did you say that using stiffness modifiers for slab would result in higher sway? Isnt the lateral distribution (for this case) on rigid diaphragm assumption would result into same story force no matter how thick or thin the slab is, which will determine the story sway(considering frame stiffness as constant)..

Edited by Umar Makhzumi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rana, why did you say that using stiffness modifiers for slab would result in higher sway? Isnt the lateral distribution (for this case) on rigid diaphragm assumption would result into same story force no matter how thick or thin the slab is, which will determine the story sway(considering frame stiffness as constant)..

i said for "out-of plane" modifiers for slab....not for "in-plane"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

apart from strength design...how would you check your serviceability without cracking (without modifiers)?

Modifiers should be used, like I said in my post. Checking serviceablity with or without is only a matter of reducing interia or not due to cracking(depending if your stress in a flexural member increase concrete modulus of rupture). I would suggest using modifiers for all flexural members. Beams, column & beam columns ;) . Anyways, Out of plane modifiers se sway pe kaise effect pare ga Rana ? I actually didnt get it. Did you mean in a different way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OUT OF PLANE stiffness reduction results in more sway because in dynamic analysis we assume

that we have rigid diaphragm supported by flexible columns

this rigid diaphragm is rigid "in-plane" thats why at any point we will get same sway

what i was talking about was not for MEMBRANE (where out of plane stiffness is zero) i was talking about SHELL element which has significant out of plane stiffness....and this out of plane bending causes outrigger action or frame action which causes changes in stiffness and hence the lateral sway

if you include shell in your model it will stiffen the building due to this effect

now if you decrease the shell stiffness (out of plane) ofcouse its lateral sway will increase...

on the other hand if you are talking about membrane only (classical) dynamic approach we dont take this effect...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OUT OF PLANE stiffness reduction results in more sway because in dynamic analysis we assume

that we have rigid diaphragm supported by flexible columns

this rigid diaphragm is rigid "in-plane" thats why at any point we will get same sway

what i was talking about was not for MEMBRANE (where out of plane stiffness is zero) i was talking about SHELL element which has significant out of plane stiffness....and this out of plane bending causes outrigger action or frame action which causes changes in stiffness and hence the lateral sway

if you include shell in your model it will stiffen the building due to this effect

now if you decrease the shell stiffness (out of plane) ofcouse its lateral sway will increase...

on the other hand if you are talking about membrane only (classical) dynamic approach we dont take this effect...

that is a different perspective but "Outrigger action"; is in-plane too & is building mai to koi significance nahin ho ge. Anyhow, I will go through it on weekend to see what potential effects it has!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sir, what i have observed is , by using modifiers sway increases....

Thats because you are using stiffness modifiers for beams and columns too that would obviously increase sway. The discussion above is that using only slab modifiers would increase or not increase sway. I am saying it shouldnt. I don t have a frame analysis software at home so AQ check this too !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • Hi there,
      I am interested in performing "Performance Based Design" for a 20 story building. 
      I'll be performing "Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis" for my model. Until now, I have decided to go with "Displacement Co-efficient method". I will be using ETABS 2017 for performing Pushover Analysis. While assigning plastic hinges, I have an option of using ASCE 41-17 (Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing buildings". I would like to know what would be a better estimate for relative distances for plastic hinges in case of beams, columns. Any input concerning assignment of hinges to beams, columns and shear walls is highly appreciated. Normally it's taken 0.05 and 0.95 or 0.1 and 0.9. What's your opinion on this?
      Secondly, it would be great if someone can recommend me a book or some good source to understand how to characterize building using performance levels. Any sort of help is appreciated.
      I have recently graduated and joined a structural design firm, so kindly guide me, considering me a beginner.

       
      • 2 replies
    • *SEFP Consistent Design*<br style="background-color:#ffffff; color:#272a34; font-size:14px; text-align:start">*Pile Design*<br style="background-color:#ffffff; color:#272a34; font-size:14px; text-align:start">*Doc No: 10-00-CD-0007*<br style="background-color:#ffffff; color:#272a34; font-size:14px; text-align:start">*Date: April 16, 2018*

      1.1. FUNCTION OF JOINT

      Beam-column joint must transfer the forces, such as moment, shear and torsion, transferred by the beam to the column so that the structure can maintain its integrity to carry loads for which it is designed.

      Another function of the beam-column joint is to help the structure to dissipate seismic forces so that it can behave in a ductile manner.

      1.2.WHY DO WE CARE

      During an extreme seismic event, the code-based structure is expected to maintain its load-carrying capacity for gravity loads even after the structure deforms into inelastic range so that it does not pose any life safety hazard. Hence, the joint can go through significant degradation of strength and stiffness, and if it fails in shear, or anchorage, the life-safety objective of code cannot be achieved.

      1.3.CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE


      1.4.THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR BEAM COLUMN JOINT

      Longitudinal bars of beams, or slab, must be able to develop their yield stress, so that the beam/slab can transfer moment to joint. It means that longitudinal bars must have adequate development length for hooked bars. This implies that the size of the column must be such that bars can develop their tensile forces. If bars can transfer moment, they can also transfer shear as far as monolithic construction is concerned.


      The shear strength of the joint must enable the transfer of moment and shear through it.



      The joint should be Constructible: Congestion of reinforcement is the main concern.

      1.5.DESIGN SHEAR FOR BEAM COLUMN JOINT

      The design shear for beam-column joint depends upon the relative strength of beam and column at the joint.

       
      • 4 replies
    • *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.

      Visit the forum link to read the complete article.
      Link: http://www.sepakistan.com/topic/2300-commentsobservations-regarding-modelling-in-etabs/
      • 0 replies
    • The minimum amount and spacing of reinforcement to be used in structural floors, roof slabs, and walls for control of temperature and shrinkage cracking is given in ACI 318 or in ACI 350R. The minimum-reinforcement percentage, which is between 0.18 and 0.20%, does not normally control cracks to within generally acceptable design limits. To control cracks to a more acceptable level, the percentage requirement needs to exceed about 0.60% (REFRENCE ACI COMMITE REPORT 224R-01)



       

       



       

       

      So according to above statement , should we follow 0.60%, to be on more safe side??



       
      • 12 replies
    • Dear Sir/Madam,

      This email is an invitation for the participation in the First South Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering (SACEE-2019) which will be held on 21-22 February 2019 in Karachi, Pakistan. This conference is the inaugural event in this series of conferences which has been constituted under the auspices of South Asia Earthquake Network (SHAKE). The organisers of the conference include NED University, University of Porto, University of Fuzhou, University Roma Tre and Institution of Engineers Pakistan. The conference website can be visited at http://sacee.neduet.edu.pk/.

      Please note that world leading earthquake engineering experts have confirmed their participation in the conference. These include Prof Abdelkrim Aoudia (Italy), Prof Alper Ilki (Turkey), Dr Amod Mani Dixit (Nepal), Prof Bruno Briseghella (Italy), Prof George Mylonakis (UK), Prof Khalid Mosalam (USA), Prof Humberto Varum (Portugal) and many others. The presence of these distinguished experts allows you to exchange your work/issues with them and discuss possibility of any future collaboration. Please note that participation in the conference is strictly based on registration. Early registration in different categories at reduced rates are available till 10 December 2018. Please visit the conference website to see the details and the link for registration.

      If there are any queries, please do not hesitate to contact the Conference Secretary at the following address

      Prof. Muhammad Masood Rafi
      Conference Secretary- SACEE-2019
      Chairman
      Department of Earthquake Engineering
      NED University of Engineering & Technology Karachi, Pakistan.
      Phone: 0092-21-992-261261 Ext:2605
      Email: rafi-m@neduet.edu.pk
    • What is the Minimum reinforcement For Precast Pile  according to different codes (ACI,BS)??  Pile length is 40 times of pile least dimension . 
      • 1 reply
    • Dear members, I am working on a 10 storied rcc factory building with one basement,  where floor loads are in general 125 psf(Live) . but there are 2 warehouse in the building at ground floor & 10th floor where the Live load of stacked materials are 450psf. I have modeled it and analysed in ETABS. After analysis, seeing the floor displacement for seismic load,  i am in big shock to see the pattern. the displacement pattern suddenly increased hugely & then got normal . if the warehouse load created problem, then why it effected only Ground floor level, not the 10th floor! Please tell me how can i solve it. 
      • 1 reply
    • Asalamualaikum all,

      I have columns which are conflicting with the underground water tank as shown in figure.
       

      So I have decided to make underground water tank base slab as a footing for column. So I import etabs model to safe and just take uniform water load on base slab and point load from columns.

      This is the residential house. The BC is 2tsf. But SAFE is showing tension on the base slab and the thickness from punching is 30''. I believe that thickness is too high. What can be the error? Is this approach is correct for design base slab of ugwt to carry load of two edge columns?
      • 11 replies
    • SAFE perform iterative uplift analysis,any one having experience how to check the results of this analysis???what is the purpose and scope of this analysis???
      • 15 replies
    • Shear wall design
      AOA 

      i am facing problems in shear wall design .what are the pier and spandral ?what will be the difference when we assign pier or spandral? without assigning these the shear wall design is incomplete .

      i am taking about etabsv16

      someone have document about shear wall design plz provide it 

      thank you

       
      • 13 replies
  • Tell a friend

    Love Structural Engineering Forum Of Pakistan? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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