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.

Sign in to follow this  
kHURRAM ALI

What Modifier Should We Take For Servicibility Check (Deflection And Drift)

Recommended Posts

aslamwalekum , when we design reinforced concrete elements , for beam we take 0.35 , for column and wall we take 0.7 and for slabs we take 0.25 as modifiers , but i read in aci that for servicibilty analysis these modifiers has to increase by 43% which means for beam it become 0.5 , for column and shear walls it become 1.0 and for slab it become 0.35 , by doing this model drift and deflection both reduce to almost half of its original value.

 

one thing more when we do manual check we dont take crack sections , for e.g for simply supported beam the deflection is 5\384 WL^4\EI , here the I (inertia ) is not the for the crack section ,its for the uncracked section , so what modifiers should be use 0.35 or 0.5 or 1.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but i read in aci that for servicibilty analysis these modifiers has to increase by 43% which means for beam it become 0.5 , for column and shear walls it become 1.0 and for slab it become 0.35 , by doing this model drift and deflection both reduce to almost half of its original value.

 

Please post the reference from where you have read about increasing serviceability factors for drift checking?

 

 

 

one thing more when we do manual check we dont take crack sections , for e.g for simply supported beam the deflection is 5\384 WL^4\EI , here the I (inertia ) is not the for the crack section ,its for the uncracked section , so what modifiers should be use 0.35 or 0.5 or 1.0

 

You should consider cracked section while doing manual checks too. Just reduce your beam/ slab inertia by factors as per ACI Code. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have posted a few lines mention in the ACI 318 code refrence R10.10.4.1 below ,please review and confirm for 43% increase in service modifires , i belive drift is also a kind of deflection and deflection always calculate at service level , thats why i think for drift modifiers will not be same as they use for ultimate design

 

the code lines are

 

Section 10.10 provides requirements for strength and
assumes frame analyses will be carried out using factored
loads. Analyses of deflections, vibrations, and building
periods are needed at various service (unfactored) load
levels10.37,10.38 to determine the serviceability of the structure
and to estimate the wind forces in wind tunnel laboratories.
The moments of inertia of the structural members in the
service load analyses should be representative of the degree
of cracking at the various service load levels investigated.
Unless a more accurate estimate of the degree of cracking at
service load level is available, it is satisfactory to use
1.0/0.70 = 1.43 times the moments of inertia given here for
service load analyses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should upload a snapshot and Highlight it. What it looks to me is that you are taking things out of context. The clause appears to be applicable to where wind tunnel studies have been done. I doubt if that is the case for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many engineers are confused with stiffness modifiers stuff in ETABS including me. Let me add my cent here.

 

1. Any reasonable set of stiffness can be used as explained in ACI 318.

 

2. You have to determine what type of frame you are analyzing; braced or un-braced

 

3. Whats the analysis type? Strength, service?

 

4. Code allows use of 0.35,0.7 factors on inertia in chapter 10 of ACI 318 for slenderness effects.

 

5. Also according to code, you can use the above same model in step 4 for lateral deflections.

 

6. Now for lateral deflections, if the lateral load is service (like Wind load of ASCE 7-05 and previous) multiply above factors by  1.43 or 1.40 (see code). For strength lateral load like Earthquake, no need to multiply by this factor.

 

7. Some times you really dont need to apply modifiers at all. For example for strength design.

 

8. For a two-way frame with membrane slabs at top, you just need to apply 0.5 factor to beam elements. Code allows this which says for strength design you can either

 a. use the same modifiers as used for slenderness

 b. use 0.5 for beam stems only

 

 

In simple words, modifiers are factors to reduce inertia for cracked sections. But if you are doing strength design, why you need the cracked inertia.

 

And as far as serviceability is concerned, authors like Nilson even argue that a factor of 0.5 as we applied in step 8 can also be skipped because of the following reasons.

 

 a. For positive moment, beam is designed as T section but in ETABS we use rectangular section, Stiffness of T = approx 2 x stiffness of rect. So no need to apply 0.5 inertia factor to beams because T compensates for that. Just use the rectangular section in ETABS.

 

b. For negative moments, beam is designed as rectangular, and we also model the rectangular section in ETABS. Now the cracking in this section is offset by the continuation of bottom bars into support which have stiffening effect.

 

I hope that helps. Let me put it as a summary here;

 

 

1. Strength & service design with membranes (slab on rigid beams as compared to slabs).

 

Beams = 0.5

 

or beams = 0.35 & columns = 0.7 (or whatever ratios just keep it constant).

 

or no modifiers at all

 

walls = 0.7 for un-cracked

            0.35 for cracked

 

2. Strength & service design with shells (flat plates etc).

 

beams and walls same as above

slabs  = 0.25 for out-of-plane m factors.

 

just multiply above factors by 1.43 for service lateral deflections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2015 at 11:49 AM, Rana said:

Some times you really dont need to apply modifiers at all. For example for strength design.

I think for single column or single beam, This statement seems true but for a frame in ETABS, relative difference between stiffness of column and beam must be provided so in any case 50% difference between stiffness of both beam and column must be provided. Am I right?

On 9/15/2015 at 11:49 AM, Rana said:

And as far as serviceability is concerned, authors like Nilson even argue that a factor of 0.5 as we applied in step 8 can also be skipped because of the following reasons.

 

 a. For positive moment, beam is designed as T section but in ETABS we use rectangular section, Stiffness of T = approx 2 x stiffness of rect. So no need to apply 0.5 inertia factor to beams because T compensates for that. Just use the rectangular section in ETABS.

 

b. For negative moments, beam is designed as rectangular, and we also model the rectangular section in ETABS. Now the cracking in this section is offset by the continuation of bottom bars into support which have stiffening effect.

I have few questions here.

1) Does ETABS design beam for positive region as T-beam or Rectangular beam? Mean does it takes into account monolithic behavior of beam with slab and make part of slab acting as flanges or not?

2) If it only design as rectangular beam, why it has algorithm of T-beam design in its manual?

3) If it design as T-beam also depending on neutral axis depth, we will have to provide 0.35 modifier for beams because here T beam is being taken as T beam in positive region so its stiffness must be les than 50% than column so we will have to use 0.35I for beams.

Edited by Engr Waqas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2016 at 11:28 AM, Engr.Suliman said:

Capture2.PNG

The statement of the quoted document (who is the author btw?); "Therefore, finally all columns and rectangular beam section's stiffnesses shall be reduced by a factor of 0.7..." is erroneous. It should have been as explained previous posts;

On 9/15/2015 at 10:49 AM, Rana said:

a. For positive moment, beam is designed as T section but in ETABS we use rectangular section, Stiffness of T = approx 2 x stiffness of rect. So no need to apply 0.5 inertia factor to beams because T compensates for that. Just use the rectangular section in ETABS.

 

b. For negative moments, beam is designed as rectangular, and we also model the rectangular section in ETABS. Now the cracking in this section is offset by the continuation of bottom bars into support which have stiffening effect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry, my statement is wrong. You are right in previous post. Ig of rectangular beam in FEA should have 0.70 factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2017 at 0:04 PM, Rana said:

I am sorry, my statement is wrong. You are right in previous post. Ig of rectangular beam in FEA should have 0.70 factor.

I assume this is just because FEA software takes beams as rectangular section instead of original T section so we are omitting to maintain 50% difference between beam and column and considering same modifier for both. But what if in manual calculations we are using same T section instead of taking it as rectangular section? I assume then we should use 0.35 for beam and 0.7 for columns. Moreover i also doubt if FEA softwares consider rectangular beam purely rectangular. After all deflection of beam is reduced due to participation of slab stiffness with beam. So i think ultimately we should consider 0.35 for beam and 0.7 for columns.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Our picks

    • I am suppose to design a pile foundation for a machine weighing approximately 50 tons and with an operational loading of 100 tons. 
      I ll appreciate your help in terms of guidance & provision of notes...  
       
      Thank you..
      • 36 replies
    • Material behavior can be idealized as consisting of an 'elastic' domain and a 'plastic' domain. For almost 200 years, structural design has been
      based on an elastic theory which assumes that structures display a linear response throughout their loading history, ignoring the post-yielding
      stage of behavior. Current design practice for reinforced concrete structures is a curious blend of elastic analysis to compute forces and moments, plasticity theory to proportion cross-sections for the moment and axial, load, and empirical mumbo-jumbo to proportion members for shear.

       

      From the book "Design of Concrete Structures with Stress Fields" by A. Muttoni,  J. Schwartz and  B.Thurliman.

       
      • 0 replies
    • Dear Fellow Researchers, Academicians, and research students,

       

      NED University of Engineering & Technology in collaboration with Institution of Engineers Pakistan (IEP) is organizing 9th International Civil Engineering Conference (ICEC 2017) on December 22-23, 2017 at Karachi, Pakistan.

       The congress details are available at its website www.neduet.edu.pk/icec

       Also attached is congress flyer for information and dissemination among your peers.

       Abstracts submission deadline has been extended till October 31, 2017.

      Please click on the link to see the full description.
      • 0 replies
    • AoA all,

      Is it mandatory to do column concreting upto the soffit of the beam in a single pour ?

      What code says about the construction/cold joint location in column ?

      Majority of the contractors are pouring the column concrete upto the soffit of the beam (full height of the column), some contractors leave the column height about 9" to 12" below the beam level and then fill this 9" to 12" column height with the beams & slab concreting. On one site column concreting was stopped at the mid height and the remaining half was filled on the next day.

      Thanks

       

       
      • 5 replies
    • 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

       
      • 9 replies
    • Salam Members,

      Congratulations to Engineers, PEC has become full signatory of Washington Accord, what are the benefits to Pakistani engineers for this agreement. 

       

      Regards   

       

       
      • 3 replies
    • Please clarify the following confusions one by one:-

       

      1. If we run P-delta analysis in ETABS, then should we ignore stiffness property modifiers for beams and columns? I have heard that if we perform P-delta analysis and apply stiffness modifiers at the same time then the moment magnification process is doubled...?

       

      2. ETABS considers selenderness of a column by applying moment magnification factors. If we run P-delta analysis also, does it mean that the selenderness of column is being over-estimated? I mean once the moments are magnified in P-delta analysis process and again through moment magnification process?

       

      Please help me understand the software myth and clarify above confusions.
      • 1 reply
    • Assalam o alaikum.
      According to ACI 12.5.2,
      development length for fc' = 3000, fy=60000, for normal weight concrete and epoxy less reinforcement, The required development length comes out to be
      for #3 = 8.2 inch
      for #4 = 10.95 inch
      for #6 = 16.42 inch
      for #8 = 21.9 inch
       
      And if in my case, ACI 12.5.3 is not fulfilled, it means now i have to provide ldh as mentioned above. ldh is STRAIGHT EMBEDMENT LENGTH + RADIUS OF BEND + ONE BAR DIAMETER as shown in figure attached. Now my question is, if in my case, main reinforcement of beam is of #6 and #4, minimum column size required will be 18 inch and 12 inch respectively. Lets say by any means, i can not select #4, #3 bars and size of column where bars are to be terminated is 12 inch, how to fullfil this development length???
      • 11 replies
    • Dear all,

      I am trying to design shearwalls through ETABS with temperature load applied over shell. At various location, spandral section fails in Shear due to temperature and piers (sometime in shear, mostly in flexure).  (See Attached Image)

      Certainly all the problem in Shearwalls are due to temperature. I don't want to increase cross section of spandral or pier at some location just due to temperature load case as it will appears non-uniform with rest of the wall. 

      I have seen stiffness modifier affect distribution of forces and also rigid/semi rigid daiphragm assumption. 

       

      Can anybody guide how to properly design the shear wall with temperature load applied in ETABS or share any similar experience. Thanks in Advance.    
      • 15 replies
    • ENGINEERS;
      I WILL LOOSE MY BRAIN FROM ETABS. 
      I DECIDED TO MAKE MANUAL MESHING FROM AREA ELEMENTS BESIDE EACH OTHER AND EVERY HING WAS FINE .
      BUT AFTER DEVISION SAY 7*7 ELEMNTS FOR EVERY BIG ELEMENT AND MAKING ETABS CHECH..................THEN 500 ERROR MESSAGE THAT ALL ELEMNTS ARE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.  WHAT ARE GOING...... SOMEONE TELL ME PLEASE...... I WILL LOST MY WORK
      • 6 replies
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By AMRITHA
      The stiffness modifier for beams = 0.35I column = 0.7I and slabs 0.25I. they are required to consider the cracking of the members. my question is why do we consider 35% of stiffness for beams while code says we can use 70% of stiffness for columns? what is the significance of the numbers 35 , 70 , 25??
    • By Rana
      What could be the purpose of reducing raft stiffness by 60% (m11=m22=m12 modifiers of 0.4) in SAFE Model?
    • By BAZ
      *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.
      Method A gives lower T and higher V, so FEMA 451 has advised not to use the value of time period less than this value even if rigorous analysis gives a lower value.
      I have seen the results where Etabs have use the value of time period less than Ta; in-fact as low as 0.5Ta, which can increase the base shear two times. (For a complete discussion on time period, please see the following this thread that complements this section).
      4) Stiffness Modifiers
      First thing is related to modelling the bending stiffness of flexural members, for strength level loads, that is representative of their condition near failure. The ACI code specifies the modifier of 0.35 on gross moment of inertia to represent its condition at yielding. 
      Some people say that the factor should be multiplied by 2 to represent the stiffness of T-beam. This approach would be justified if you are not taking into the account the out of plan bending stiffness of slab.
      But, ETABS does include the out of plane bending stiffness if you have modelled the slab by using shell elements. So, a factor of 0.7 would overestimate the stiffness of your structure in this case, and will lead to under-design.
      If one has used the modifier of 0.35 in ETABS for beams in beam-slab floor system, then what value should be adopted for slab? It should not be 0.25, as this value has been specified for flat plates and flat sab floor system.
      If one is using some value of modifier for out of plane bending stiffness on shells, then the share of the bending moment in beams will be reduced accordingly. This approach is correct if one will be providing the reinforcement in column strips of slab. But, if you are providing reinforcement in slab in the direction perpendicular to supports only, i.e. beams, as is the general practice in Pakistan, then you are under-estimating the flexural demand in beams.
      Now, there is also a question of factors to be used while deciding the amount of reinforcement required in beams, columns and shear walls.
      If you are using factors 0.35 for beams and shear walls, and 0.7 for columns, then you are finding out the demand in members at the point of yielding, and this conforms to the code. But, this also means that the structure might experience unacceptable cracks widths. So, if you are using 0.35 for calculating the demand at strength-level forces, then you should also perform crack-control-check at service-level loads by using the factor of 1.
      If you are calculating the strength-level demand with a modifier of 1 for all structural members, after you have decided the location and the number of shear walls with modifier of 0.35, then you are overestimating seismic forces, as you are underestimating the time-period. But, the structural performance will improve.
      This article is based on my two separate posts regarding the subject matter. You can view the discussion on the items raised above by viewing the following links:
      1) http://www.sepakistan.com/topic/2008-issues-in-etabs-results/
      2) http://www.sepakistan.com/topic/2290-modelling-issuesconsideration-in-etabs/
      Thanks.
    • By BAZ
      I want to comment on some modelling issues in ETABS. Though some of these things are discussed elsewhere in the forum, I hope to extract some more useful conclusions.
      First thing is related to modelling the bending stiffness of flexural members, for strength level loads, that is representative of their condition near failure.
      The ACI code specifies the modifier of 0.35 on gross moment of inertia to represent its condition at yielding.
      Some people say that the factor should be multiplied by 2 to represent the stiffness of T-beam. This approach would be justified if you are not taking into the account the out of plan bending stiffness of slab.
      But, ETABS does include the out of plane bending stiffness if you have modelled the slab by using shell elements. So, a factor of 0.7 would overestimate the stiffness of your structure in this case, and will lead to under-design.
      If one has used the modifier of 0.35 in ETABS for beams in beam-slab floor system, then what value should be adopted for slab? It should not be 0.25, as this value has been specified for flat plates and flat sab floor system.
      If one is using some value of modifier for out of plane bending stiffness on shells, then the share of the bending moment in beams will be reduced accordingly. This approach is correct if one will be providing the reinforcement in column strips of slab. But, if you are providing reinforcement in slab in the direction perpendicular to supports only, i.e. beams, as is the general practice in Pakistan, then you are under-estimating the flexural demand in beams.
      Now, there is also a question of factors to be used while deciding the amount of reinforcement required in beams, columns and shear walls.
      If you are using factors 0.35 for beams and shear walls, and 0.7 for columns, then you are finding out the demand in members at the point of yielding, and this conforms to the code. But, this also means that the structure might experience unacceptable cracks widths. So, if you are using 0.35 for calculating the demand at strength-level forces, then you should also perform crack-control-check at service-level loads by using the factor of 1.
      If you are calculating the strength-level demand with a modifier of 1 for all structural members, after you have decided the location and the number of shear walls with modifier of 0.35, then you are overestimating seismic forces, as you are underestimating the time-period. But, the structural performance will improve.
    • By Elie Saadeh
      Hi, i am a fifth year student working on my final project, it is a 59 floors +  basements tower.
      I am having a weird problem; after applying the stiffness or property modifiers (0.35 for beams and walls, 0.7 for columns and 0.25 for slabs), i got an instability warning during analysis. After several trials i found out that the problem is from the modifiers of the slabs, the other elements don't give me any warnings.
      So i tried to change the value of the 0.25 modifier and increased it to 0.35 (or higher) and after that i didnt get any warning messages.
      Is it normal or logical to get an instability warning below a certain value for a property modifier? or there is another problem related to something else and appears when i do this adjustment ??
      i still cant use the 0.25 modifier for the slabs (for m11 m22 and m12).
      Any help is appreciated a lot. Thanks.
    • By mhdhamood
      Hi;
      In ETABS model for designing columns and shear walls(because slabs will be desined on SAFE), I want to reduce m11=m22=m12=f11=f22=f22=0.25 Can I? (Semi rigid diaphragm assigned)
      thats because I want to design the building at same model for temperature and seimic and wind loads.
       
    • By Hassangrewal
      As beam Moment of inertia is 0.35 as per ACI code . if we taking it 35% then where is rest of 65% going ? Kindly give me concept of it , Similarly in Column we are taking it 70% what about remaining 30% ?
  • Recent Discussions

  • Latest Forum and Club Posts

×

Important Information

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