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.

Design For Shear And Torsion Using Etabs


Hasnain Khan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I have recently joined a structural engineer, and trying to get myself familiar with the norms of practice, so I have some basic questions which I haven't been able to get answers of sufficiently.

 

After modelling the structure in ETABS I'm trying to find out how to interpret the values of shear and torsion reinforcement given in design outputs. I have tried to find the answers by codes, manuals but haven't succeeded. Even asking my colleagues haven't given a satisfying answer, as everyone has his/her own way of interpreting these values.

 

Thanks,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have'nt understood your question. What do you mean by interpret; ETABS have clearly defined the symbols/acronyms that they use in design report. It is a common practice to add torsion reinforcement in flexural reinforcement, and divide it over the depth of beam: top bottom and middle. Stirrups  are also able to arrest the cracks due to torsion.

But the important point is to ascertain the importance of torsion reinforcement in a beam. The beam that transfers  load from a slab which is supported on four /three sides don't need all the torsion reinforcement reported by ETABS, as it can redistribute the stressed in the form of flexure and shear in beam and slab. Only minium torsion reinforcement is required in this case. In these cases you can run the analysis by reducing tosion stiffness of beam so that beam does not fail in shear+torsion in ETABS.

The Beam part of a cantilever slab has to transfer the moment through torsion as no other load path is available in this case, and redistribution is not possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I have recently joined a structural engineer, and trying to get myself familiar with the norms of practice, so I have some basic questions which I haven't been able to get answers of sufficiently.

 

After modelling the structure in ETABS I'm trying to find out how to interpret the values of shear and torsion reinforcement given in design outputs. I have tried to find the answers by codes, manuals but haven't succeeded. Even asking my colleagues haven't given a satisfying answer, as everyone has his/her own way of interpreting these values.

 

Thanks,

 

See this:

 

SEFP Consistent Design: Design for Torsion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

yeah every frame Element has its torsion constant which you can find in the Property Modifier of that Element.

 

At the time of defining any col or beam than giving the size and depths of that element you can see ''property modifier'' where you can find torsional constant.

 

My boss has told me to use 0.7 for col instead of 1 and 0.01 for beams instead of 1.

now i am trying to figure it out why we uses this..I will get you when i found this answer...:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

For interpreting the ETABs Results see the 1st picture in Attaachment

As far as choosing a torsional constant for a member see the second doc. in attachmetns

post-453-0-27688500-1407337106_thumb.jpg

Torsional Constant for Beams in ETABs .docx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For interpreting the ETABs Results see the 1st picture in Attaachment

As far as choosing a torsional constant for a member see the second doc. in attachmetns

 

Zain,

 

Could you post the source/ reference for the method described in Torsional Constant For Beams in ETABs.docx document?

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Dear Zain,

 

I don't know the origin of document,you have uploaded for calculating torsional constant,but the methodology given therein is incorrect.As "Tcr" and "Tu" given therein are indeed threshold torsional strength and ultimate torsional stresses respectively, and are both design properties  not analysis properties. (See ACI 318-11 section 11.5.1).

 

Whereas the torsional constant, ETABS asks in "analysis property modification factors" is simply the torsional moment of inertia (J) used to determine torsional stiffness of a member (JG/L) i.e something else.

 

As long as its value is concerned,then in building structures it is a general practice to use a negligible value like .001 to nullify beam's torsional stiffness.In this way, the torsional stresses (if arising due to compatibility of deformation i.e compatibility torsion ) are transferred via alternate load path (i.e redistribution of torsional moments occurred), considering that beam is unable to provide torsional restraint and in other condition if torsional stresses in beam is required to satisfy equilibrium of structure (where redistribution is not possible) then torsional stresses in beams remains independent of whatever value of "J" you have selected as equilibrium equations are necessarily satisfied independent of stiffness as "Compatibility is optional and equilibrium is essential".

 

This approach of minimization of "J" economize beam sizes that arise from stringent combined shear and torsion requirement of building codes,but consequently beam sections designed in this way will start developing internal horizontal cracks (hairline cracks not affecting functionality of structure) due to torsional stresses and their torsional strength will continuously degrade till the design condition is achieved i.e negligible torsional strength of beam.But as the structure is designed to be stable without torsional stiffness of beam so it remain stable after this condition is achieved.However, the beam member itself cracks that doesn't affect the functionality of structure in any way.

 

A very descriptive and clarifying description is available in "Reinforced concrete design by Arthur Nilson".

 

As long as authentication of this approach is concerned then it is allowed by building codes as,

 

1, ACI-318-11 section 11.5.2.1 & 11.5.2.2.

 

2, UBC97 section 1911.6.2.1 & 1911.6.2.2

 

3, BS 8110-1 1997 section 3.4.5.13

 

Keeping in view above mentioned, it is a general practice to nullify torsional constant of beams in building structures and it is not required to use any iterative process to derive torsional constant of each beam section that is indeed not practical as there will be thousands of beam span in large structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 1 year later...

I am confused regarding this approach of reducing torsional modifier to such great extent. According to ACI 11.5.2.2

In a statically indeterminate structure  where reduction of the torsional moment in a member
can occur due to redistribution of internal forces upon cracking, the maximum Tu shall be permitted to be
reduced to the values given in (a), (b), or (c), as applicable:
(a) For nonprestressed members, at the sections
described in 11.5.2.4

φ4λ Sqrt(fc ′) A2cp / Pcp

 

It says that we can reduce torsional moment upto a specified limit. Not to zero or 0.001.  In its commentary it says, 

 

For this condition, illustrated in Fig. R11.5.2.2, the
torsional stiffness before cracking corresponds to that of
the uncracked section according to St. Venant’s theory. At
torsional cracking, however, a large twist occurs under an
essentially constant torque
, resulting in a large redistribution
of forces in the structure.11.34,11.35 The cracking torque
under combined shear, flexure, and torsion corresponds to
a principal tensile stress somewhat less than the
quoted in R11.5.1.
When the torsional moment exceeds the cracking torque, a
maximum factored torsional moment equal to the cracking
torque
may be assumed to occur at the critical sections near
the faces of the supports. This limit has been established to
control the width
of torsional cracks.

Also according to Nislon, this distribution is only possible after extensive cracking as highlighted in below pic. So I doubt the approach used to neglect torsion upto 0.001 level

What i got from the 2nd attachement of Zain Saeed the author is dividing Tcr with Tu to find how much reduction in Tu is needed to reduce torsion upto Tcr which is, as mentioned above, is necessary to keep torsional crack widths in control. and hence using the modifier for each section defined for beam. It might be a bit lengthy task to evaluate for each type of section ( most loaded members of a type of beam may be checked only), but the approach seems more realistic. 

Kindly comment as I think if even we reduce to 0.001, still this redistribution in torsion is not possible without large twisting which is not possible without excessive cracking. So reucing upto such a low value does not seem good. 

Untitled.png

Edited by Waqas Haider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is what i found in "Structural Concrete theory and Design by Nadeem Hussen"

 

Here it also reports the same thing that we should design for torsion for atleast 

φ4λ Sqrt(fc ′) A2cp / Pcp

Which is also specified by ACI that we can reduce our torsion upto phi.Tcr i.e. cracking torsion and not below this. Even if we neglect the remaining torsion for compatibility, we should atleast perform design for phi.Tcr or should at least provide minimum longitudinal and transverse reinforcemet for torsion. This is to control crack width to satisfy servicability. ACI, Nilson and Nadeem hussen all quote the same thing.

Hence reducing the modifier upto such a little value is not good at start. At start we should go for a value of 1, 0.3 or any other suitable value which user think is small enough to release majority of compatibility torsion and will sustain only smaler torsional moments. After designing, if still some indeterminate beams are being failed, then for the specific beams we can reduce value unless we get Tu equall to phi.Tcr or a bit larger than that. Because putting Torsional modifier to 0.001 would not report any torsional reinforcement and hence adding no torsional reinforcement at all would cause excessive crack widths affecting serviceability of the structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

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.