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.

Recommended Posts

  • 1 year later...

Thanks for a good informative article on torsional aspects of RC members.  However, it is suggested that references to relevant codes or documents should be complete, for easy following of information and checking back the original reference for further study. For example, it took me a while to figure out which edition was being referred to, since the year of ACI 318 being referred was missing.

 

Accordingly, a little addition of references.

 

The above article refers generally to section 11.6 of 2005 edition of ACI 318 (ACI 318-05). In 2008 and 2011 editions (ACI 318-08 and ACI318-11), however the relevant information has been moved to section 11.5. The quote portion, in new codes, is in section R11.5.1, and the new figure numbers are Fig. R11.5.2.1 and R11.5.2.2 respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

I was browsing through code and noticed something I thought would share as this question keeps coming in the forum. It is about when to consider torsional stiffness and when to ignore it.

Thanks.

Quote

R8.7 — Stiffness 

Two conditions determine whether it is necessary to consider torsional stiffness in the analysis of a given structure: (1) the relative magnitude of the torsional and flexural stiffnesses, and (2) whether torsion is required for equilibrium of the structure (equilibrium torsion) or is due to members twisting to maintain deformation compatibility (compatibility torsion). In the case of compatibility torsion, the torsional stiffness may be neglected. For cases involving equilibrium torsion, torsional stiffness should be considered. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

If i reduce my torsion constant to 0.01, having in mind that it is only needed for compatibility, The moment will transfer to slab and secondary beams and ultimately equilibrium will be obtained. But I m confused to achieve this equilibrium, the main beam need to twist for compatibility until equilibrium is achieved. This will induce diagonal cracks in main beam. Is it acceptable and with in serviceable limits? Are these hairline cracks dont affecting any thing especially appearance or any other design force?

I have also seen an approach of providing moment release to secondary beams to avoid excessive torsion and to get same condition physically reinforcement at joints of secondary  beams is provided to resemble pin support. But still i m confuse if this type of reinforcement is provided, the secondary beam section will crack. Are these cracks in acceptable limit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Waqas Haider said:

The moment will transfer to slab and secondary beams and ultimately equilibrium will be obtained. But I m confused to achieve this equilibrium, the main beam need to twist for compatibility until equilibrium is achieved.

 

7 hours ago, Waqas Haider said:

Are these cracks in acceptable limit?

You can let the main beam crack. You know the applied force and you can calculate the stress due to force and subsequent crack width.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here I am confused regarding two things... 1st is how much we can reduce our design torsion Tu? If we reduce modifier to 0 or 0.01 it means we are reducing Tu completely...

But 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 fc ′. Sqrt(Acp^2/pcp)

ans Section 11.5.2.4 says 

"11.5.2.4 — In nonprestressed members, sections located less than a distance d from the face of a support shall be designed for not less than Tu computed at a distance d. If a concentrated torque occurs within this distance, the critical section for design shall be at the face of the support."

 

It is saying in first clause that we can reduced our torsion upto minimum of φ4λ fc ′. Sqrt(Acp^2/pcp). So reducing modifier upto negligible value is confusing me. More over how to cater this reduction upto specified limiit of φ4λ fc ′. Sqrt(Acp^2/pcp)?

In 2nd paragraph it is relating torison design for distance less than d to the distance equal or greater than d. Is it a generalized statement or it is specifically saying that this minimum Tu requirement is for the distances less than d and for distances greater than d these can be ignored? 

Thanks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Waqas,

Please see the following post:

The use of null modifiers for compatibility torsion like 0.001 arises out of convenience only. It is justified for situations such as compatibility torsion as we as design engineers can force alternate load paths at our discretion (nothing wrong with that).

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from Book "Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings by Bungale S. Taranath"

From an inspection of the given problem, determine if the design torsion, Tu, is due to equilibrium torsion or due to compatibility torsion. If it is due to equilibrium, design of member for the entire calculated torsion. If Tu is due to compatibility requirements, as in statically indeterminate structures, it is permissible to reduce Tu to a maximum value, To given by
φ4λ fc ′. Sqrt(Acp^2/pcp)

Why ACI is putting limit on reduction if we can reduce upto negligible values?

 

Moreover,kindly explain the following wording by the same book.

 

Overall Building Torsion

Regarding the simultaneous application of loads in two mutually perpendicular directions, it is worth noting that for buildings in SDC B, the earthquake loads are assumed to act independently along the two orthogonal axes of the buildings. For SDC C buildings having nonparallel lateral load–resisting systems, and for all buildings in SDC D and higher, 100% of the forces for one direction are added to 30% of the forces in the perpendicular direction, the directions chosen to give the worst effect for the member being designed.

Is it necessary for every type of building in SDC D and higher? I though this clause is for only non parallel lateral load resisting systems. 
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Waqas Haider said:

This is from Book "Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings by Bungale S. Taranath"

From an inspection of the given problem, determine if the design torsion, Tu, is due to equilibrium torsion or due to compatibility torsion. If it is due to equilibrium, design of member for the entire calculated torsion. If Tu is due to compatibility requirements, as in statically indeterminate structures, it is permissible to reduce Tu to a maximum value, To given by
φ4λ fc ′. Sqrt(Acp^2/pcp)

Why ACI is putting limit on reduction if we can reduce upto negligible values?

 

 

 

ACI provides minimum design recommendations. You can go ahead and comply with them. As Engineer of Record, you are bound to stick with Building Code (ACI is not a building Code) and you can also exercise your engineering judgement in cases where you deem it necessary. Like I said, nothing wrong with it. If you want to reduce compatibility based on above quoted equation, please do so, but others that don't want to follow that approach can also do that.

 

1 hour ago, Waqas Haider said:

Overall Building Torsion

Regarding the simultaneous application of loads in two mutually perpendicular directions, it is worth noting that for buildings in SDC B, the earthquake loads are assumed to act independently along the two orthogonal axes of the buildings. For SDC C buildings having nonparallel lateral load–resisting systems, and for all buildings in SDC D and higher, 100% of the forces for one direction are added to 30% of the forces in the perpendicular direction, the directions chosen to give the worst effect for the member being designed.

Is it necessary for every type of building in SDC D and higher? I though this clause is for only non parallel lateral load resisting systems. 

I don't know the context, but based on what has been posted, the author for the book recommends all building in SDC D to be checked for 100% one direction + 30% perpendicular direction. As far as design practice goes, I haven't designed anything classified as a building in last 7 years so don't know what the current codes state about the requirement.

Thanks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Waqas,

I have seen your updated post. What you have quoted in correct and as per ACI recommendations. What I am trying to highlight is that we don't need to worry about compatibility torsion for typical beam-column, two way slab concrete frame structures because - and I will quote my above reply here:

On 2017-03-23 at 11:38 AM, UmarMakhzumi said:

As Engineer of Record, you are bound to stick with Building Code (ACI is not a building Code) and you can also exercise your engineering judgement in cases where you deem it necessary. Like I said, nothing wrong with it. If you want to reduce compatibility based on above quoted equation, please do so, but others that don't want to follow that approach can also do that.

The approach of 0.001 is used because ACI minimum design recommendations are too conservative for compatibility torsion for beam-column two way slab structure (what we have in Pakistan 99% of the time). That is why you never see any serviceability failures due to compatibility torsion (the other reason could be the tendency to over-reinforce structure but lets focus on this one for now).

You can follow the guideline but those who don't follow it (like myself), do it for the reason explained above. The difference here is the same as difference between laws and traditions. Laws are there but people tend to incline towards tradition. So, probably we can blame our innate tribalism for following such stuff and not code. :)

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.