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

On 1/12/2017 at 2:47 PM, Abid Qasmi said:

interesting discussion!!! but how can we check T i.e the fundamental time period in ETABS?

 

 

Please use search feature of this forum before repeating the same question. Refer to

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Waseem,

Your first two points from NEHRP are logical as they are directed towards the implementation of an upper limit on time period to be used in seismic forces evaluation to eliminate the possibility of excessively flexible structure.These provisions are present in all building codes and seem to be logical and valid.

For usage of Ta when Tactual < Ta,

The RS curve you have shown indicates Ta & Tc both on constant acceleration zone , so whether you use Ta or Tc you will get the maximum ground acceleration or in ELF terms whether you use any of them equation of max base shear will govern.So both are equal mathematically.

However, ASCE endorses what you are saying. But as long as usage of Ta (approximate period) when Tactual < Ta is concerned it still seems illogical to me and will be associated with potential inconsistencies, some of them could be as follows,

  • Drifts evaluated from Ta will be lesser than actual, therefore building separation widths (most importantly) will be under estimated.
  • Code defined equation of max base shear will be of no value for a certain height of structures, while following this.
  • As the actual seismic forces will be greater than that used in design, therefore structure will require high energy dissipation demand than anticipated, as members will be yielded and extended to inelastic range of stresses earlier (due to under estimation of seismic forces) than anticipated stage (associated with R used and detailing performed).

Many other issues will also arise due to under estimation of seismic forces that you can also consider.

Therefore, although this document is published from a credible source but they didn't justify the adequacy of this provision and didn't address the probable consequences.So it seems a non-engineered dictation to me.

Practically this situation is very rare but I will go for UBC97 in such situation rather than following this.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Umar,

First-off, many thanks for the explanation and your interest in the topic. Highly appreciated. Perhaps, the RSA image added to the confusion than doing anything good, i guess.

We are in the same boat as far as T within the range of maximum spectral acceleration is concerned, however, kernel of the discussion revolves around the "scaling of dynamic base shear with respect to ELF base shear". As such, analysis time period (used in RSA graph), even if lies within the maximum acceleration range might give dynamic base shear less than ELF V.

For this, and as required by certain codes (American e.g.), for scaling up the dynamic base shear, we need to establish a "Time Period" for static procedures and calculate static base shear.

So I wanna twist our discussion in another way. Let me ask, if T(dynamic) and T(static) are same, do we get same base shear from both methods?

Static procedures V depend on R; a compound factor for ductility, damping, inelastic/elastic response etc. On the other hand, spectral acceleration from RSA is a function of Ca, Cv and damping but not specifically R.

Dynamic base shear is the product of mass matrix, acceleration and participation factor of each mode then we add up all the modes by some type of combination, right. Now, even if time periods were same, and even if the structure behaved in fundamental mode (SDOF concept of RSA) with very rigid torsion response, base shears from both methods would still be little different due to partial active mass in dynamic analysis (maybe 90%?).

Hence (and correct me), saying that T corresponding to Vmax of static procedures if used in RSA would result in same base shear would not be appropriate, i guess.

Moreover, in my opinion, RSA analysis (although based on actual earthquake records), is a tool where you need to put up some boundaries; upper and lower. Whereas the empirical time period limitations make more sense as they were calculated based on actual buildings and earthquakes through statistical analysis. That might be the reason FEMA recommends using Ta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 9:28 AM, Rana said:

 

a.png

I reached at the similar conclusion on this ambiguity.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2016 at 8:49 AM, ILYAS said:

ETABS 2015 have  option in design that whether you consider minimum eccentricity or not

 

Etabs version 9.7.5 also have the option whether to condider minimum eccentricity or not

 

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


  • 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 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.
  • Recent Discussions

  • Latest Forum and Club Posts

×

Important Information

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