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.

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


kHURRAM ALI
 Share

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

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • 3 months later...
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
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.

 

Link to comment
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.

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.