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.

Problem In Etabs Design Summary


khalid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Salaikom dear professionals,

First of all I would like to express my sincere thanks to the initiators of this forum for establishing such an exceptional atmosphere for knowledge/experience sharing, I it is really useful, In fact since I have found the forum I am mostly online and busy reading the posts. I would also like to thank the members for their professional comments and advice. :)

As my first post in this forum I would like to ask the following queries:

1-After running the analysis and design when I check the DESIGN DATA through Display >> Show Tables >> DESIGN DATA >> Concrete Frame Output, there is no specific message in Column Summary Data and Beam Summary Data, but in Joint summary data it is showing that “Joint B/C check not done”. Does anyone has any idea? I am sharing the ETABS model for your information and easy reference.

ETABS MODEL.zip

2- ETABS provides greater area of steel in the upper column than the column at BASE, perhaps due to higher moment. Could someone explain why this is so? In practice should we maintain maximum steel in both stories? Or we shall follow what the software suggests?

3- Beside considering the minimum thickness required for deflection control of Beam as per Table 9.a Chapter 9 ACI-318 , using concrete crack behavior in ETABS and checking story drift, Do we have to check the deflection of beams for the serviceability propose elsewhere in ETBAS? If yes, Could anyone explain it?

Regards, and look forward to any explanation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2- Upper columns will have higher moment and less axial force so more area of steel. Yes you could provide different reinforcement in upper and lower stories as per your design.

 

3-yes you have to check serviceability for beams. Code minimum thicknesses are "deemed" to be okay but its independent of loading magnitude. You can check long term deflection on actual loading in SAFE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2- Upper columns will have higher moment and less axial force so more area of steel. Yes you could provide different reinforcement in upper and lower stories as per your design.

 

3-yes you have to check serviceability for beams. Code minimum thicknesses are "deemed" to be okay but its independent of loading magnitude. You can check long term deflection on actual loading in SAFE.

 

 Thank you very much Sir Rana,

 

 

3- Mean that I should also check the beams deflection for (1D.L + 1L.L) load combination in SAFE and compare the calculated deflection with MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE COMPUTED DEFLECTIONS as in table 9.5.b of ACI 318.

 

Please correct me sir if I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1DL + 1LL is for short term linear elastic deflection. You should multiply this by a factor given in ACI chapter 9 for long term deflection. Or perform actual long term deflection in SAFE by using creep and shrinkage coefficients (time taking and boring..right? :)

 

Okay! just a trick here, make ETABS combination of 1.0 Dead cases + 1.0 Live cases and apply cracked modifiers. Check this deflection, it should be nearly similar to long term deflection. Increase it by some percentage to be on safer side.

 

Compare this by L/240 or L/480 and L should be in the direction of deflected shape contour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Sir Rana,  your detailed and helpful explanation has cleared my doubts on two questions (2,3)....... PERFECT 

 

 

In question No.1 there may be some problem in modeling which I couldn't find out :( Please could check the model and give a brief explanation on that too.

 

 

Thank you very much again for having spent your time in making me more correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Khalid,

 

You might want to look at this thread too for long term deflection: http://www.sepakistan.com/topic/85-long-term-deflection-multiplier/

 

Regarding 1), I am not sure as I have been out of commercial building engineering and using ETABS for more than 5 years. Other people may be better able to answer you on that.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Dear Khalid !

 

i go through your model and upto my understanding your model is OK but 2 corrections are required.

 

1) As you mention that the zone of the building is ZONE 3.So you must have to check the Beam Column Joint Ratio which you are saying that it is not done.it is because you have overwrite the sway property from Sway Special to Sway Intermediate.So change your sway type from Sway Intermediate to Sway Special then you will get the required B/C Ratio.

 

2) In defining the slab you have define slab as a MEMBRANE and membrane takes in-plane stresses only. And in reality the slab also take out of plane stresses by deflecting/bending. So define slab as a SHELL THIN then it will take both in-plane and out-plane stresses.

 

Have a look to the snaps and the model with the two corrections i have made.

post-1602-0-50581300-1423806457_thumb.pn

post-1602-0-05615400-1423806461_thumb.pn

Sari Pul_V13.rar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Engineer Sahib Junaid, Thank you very much for your valuable inputs.

 

I revised the model accordingly, but when I am defining the slab type as Mesh, the following problems in the model appear:

 

1- The value of designed reinforcement is far away from manual calculation and the values which are calculated for Membrane type slab.

2- In Shell type slab there is no specific message and error on Beam/Column joint capacity ratio, but when I am changing the slab type to Membrane some it is different.

 

Regards 

Khalid 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rana Bahai, …. I am wondering that how changing the type of slab to Shell and Membrane can change the design result this much.

 

In Shell type slab there is no specific message and error on Beam/Column joint capacity ratio except the very less amount of steel bar of Beams.

 

As you advised and In order to be on safe side I defined the slab as Membrane and ignored the out-of-plane stiffness of the slab, but after running the analysis amount of designed reinforcement is remarkably changing and the “Beam Column Capacity Ratio Exceeding the limits” is also appeared, while this message was not there in Shell type slab.

 

I got confused with this :unsure:  , your help is highly appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Load which is applied to MEMBRANE objects transfers directly to supporting structural objects i.e beams, whereas SHELL objects have bending stiffness and therefore resist a portion of the load through flexural deformation. As a result, less load will be available to transfer to beams located under a shell, while 100% of the load will transfer through a membrane.

 

SO in membrane type slab case your B/C joint capacity exceeds the limit because you need more strong joint than that of the SHELL type slab case.

If you are assigning the slab as Membrane and want to overcome the joint capacity failure so either increase the column size or reduce the beam size.....

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.