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.

Beam Fail In Torsion And Shear In Etabs Then Why Torsion Modifier Reduce To 0.001


kHURRAM ALI
 Share

Recommended Posts

many engineers in pakistan use this practice when modeling a beam in etabs , that if beam is fail in shear and torsion than they just change the torsion modifier from 0.35 to 0.001 , and then redesign that beam , after designing that beam appear to be pass in shear and torsion , also showing zero r/f required for this particular beam.

 

i want to know that is this the right way to model beam, does code provide such kind of solution ,or it has no meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are doing it right. It depends on you. It is the beauty of the structures that they will behave the way you designed them. 

 

When reducing the torsion modifier for beams that are failing to a value approx equal to 0 then watch for the increased moments in slabs. If you put the reinforcement in slab for additional moment then it is ok!

 

It depends upon the relative stiffness of beam and slab that how much load beam will take (Torsion, moment etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing I want to add, although I am not sure about this.
 
 
In ACI code there are two methods of calculating the torsion for a beam in ACI 11.5. One is slab resting on beam and there is torsion in the beam ACI Fig R 11.5.2.2 and second method is slab cantilever from beam Fig R 11.5.2.1.
 
ETABS normally design the each beam by the second method which is the conservative one. So this the reason beams mostly fails in torsion effect. This is the reason we reduce the torsion modifier otherwise no code allows to reduce modifier to such extent.
 
This is my concept any body can comment...... :)  specially Rana Waseem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing I want to add, although I am not sure about this.

 

 

In ACI code there are two methods of calculating the torsion for a beam in ACI 11.5. One is slab resting on beam and there is torsion in the beam ACI Fig R 11.5.2.2 and second method is slab cantilever from beam Fig R 11.5.2.1.

 

ETABS normally design the each beam by the second method which is the conservative one. So this the reason beams mostly fails in torsion effect. This is the reason we reduce the torsion modifier otherwise no code allows to reduce modifier to such extent.

 

This is my concept any body can comment...... :)  specially Rana Waseem

 

In my understanding these are NOT 2 different methods;

 

This is just a differentiation;

 

There are two torsions; 

 

1. Compatibility torsion (where redistribution of moments take place) like slab on beams

 

2. Equilibrium torsion (where there is no path available for redistribution of moments, like a cantilever slab resting on a beam)

 

These are not two different methods of analysis in ACI or ETABS. This is just to distinguish the cases.

 

That is why it does not matter in ETABS because in ETABS loads will follow the paths that is available.

 

So does not matter if it is case 1 or 2, apply J modifiers but watch for slab moments.

 

Also make sure your detailing handles all these issues.

 

For example if the beam is torsionally too stiff as compared to slab, it will take more moment as compared to slab, and if you are applying less J modifier to beam then make sure the detailing also follows the same approach. (try to increase bottom reinforcement of slab).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Rana, I partially agree and partially disagree

 

You are right about the explanation. This is much informaticve for me. but when ETABS will check the torsion, how it will check. In ETABS its is not coded to check the beam torsion by which way. Neither ETABS nor we can ask it to do what we want. So ETABS takes it conservative. I am also not 100% confirm but this is my opinion.

 

About the modifier you are saying, I think no code allows to reduce it to 0.001. This is just a practice to handle ETABS issue.

 

Actually, I am not saying it by myself, I asked this question from the person that used to work for CSI & ETABS as you know that was my last office.

 

Thanks

 

Muneeb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I am really confuse it we dont design beam for torsion than how we are going to design our slab for the torsion that is coming from beam.

providing how much amount of moment near support in slab.

Plius this is the design practice in pakistan that we reduce torsional modifier to 0.01 in beams but for slab we are designing it manually...not taking into consideration that we ignored it beam...

is this a right practice.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On 6/6/2015 at 11:54 PM, Muneeb Badar said:

Dear Rana,
 
Please check the reference from ETABS Concrete design manual. This is what I am saying.
 
Thanks
 
Muneeb

 

post-2235-0-88712200-1433656456_thumb.pn

Dear engineers, can somebody clarify the above. What is the difference between the analysis results of a member released for torsion and a member with torsional stiffness modified in a statically indeterminate structure? I have had the understanding that both of them have same effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2018 at 2:42 PM, Eman said:

Dear engineers, can somebody clarify the above. What is the difference between the analysis results of a member released for torsion and a member with torsional stiffness modified in a statically indeterminate structure? I have had the understanding that both of them have same effect.

Likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2018 at 12:42 AM, Eman said:

 

The paper says that upon cracking the internal redistribution occurs. However like for moments, ETABS does not redistribute Torsion automatically. If you want it, then release (or apply modifiers) to redistribute forces. That is why I said, after this, you need to check for increased forces in slab. Its that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thaks engineer. But do you mean that for flexural monents unlike for torsional moments, the program has a capability to redistribute the values automatically; witout providing release/stifness modifier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analysis is Linear. Automatic redistribution would have been possible if analysis were Non-Linear. In order to approximate redistribution (during cracking), the USER has to put some kind of stiffness modification. This applies to shear, torsion, moments, axial...everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, as my understanding stiffness modifiers has nothing to do with redistribution of moment for statically indeterminate structure. As stiffness modifiers are applied through out the length of the member (here in this case i am addressing a beam particularly) to account for cracks which might occur whether at mid-span or support, whereas redistribution of mement due to cracking too should be applied through the provision of beam-end releases only until the moment at support reaches the desired value; as per design codes the reduction is allowed up to 30% of the support moments. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
On 6/4/2015 at 12:57 PM, Rana said:

They are doing it right. It depends on you. It is the beauty of the structures that they will behave the way you designed them. 

 

When reducing the torsion modifier for beams that are failing to a value approx equal to 0 then watch for the increased moments in slabs. If you put the reinforcement in slab for additional moment then it is ok!

 

It depends upon the relative stiffness of beam and slab that how much load beam will take (Torsion, moment etc).

@Rana , i’ve try it to contact you in email and Skype , but without succes .

Can you help me with an Etabs&Safe Analisys for a verry small 2 leves building , 160qm , but with long opened corner cantilever 

please contact me an email : Luk2011 at yahoo dot com

I hope you will get this message and will want you to help me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/20/2018 at 6:50 PM, Luk said:

@Rana , i’ve try it to contact you in email and Skype , but without succes .

Can you help me with an Etabs&Safe Analisys for a verry small 2 leves building , 160qm , but with long opened corner cantilever 

please contact me an email : Luk2011 at yahoo dot com

I hope you will get this message and will want you to help me

Please post the question here. I can't help preparing models for you but if you do have a specific question, please feel free to post in the relevant section of the forum. This post will be deleted after 3 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
On 6/4/2015 at 1:57 PM, WR1 said:

They are doing it right. It depends on you. It is the beauty of the structures that they will behave the way you designed them. 

 

When reducing the torsion modifier for beams that are failing to a value approx equal to 0 then watch for the increased moments in slabs. If you put the reinforcement in slab for additional moment then it is ok!

 

It depends upon the relative stiffness of beam and slab that how much load beam will take (Torsion, moment etc).

What if the beam fails in ETABS even with torsional stiffness modification factor in ETABS (0.01) but yet passes in SAFE, what to do? torsional  failure that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • UmarMakhzumi changed the title to Beam Fail In Torsion And Shear In Etabs Then Why Torsion Modifier Reduce To 0.001

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.