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.

CSI SAFE FINITE ELEMENT DESIGN INTERPRETATION


spatio99
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello Guys,

I'm finding it difficult interpreting the rebar intensity contour plots (direction 1 and 2) generated by CSI SAFE after finite element design of a slab. I'm getting intensities as high as 3500 mm2 per m at column joints. How does one provide reinforcement for a slab using the contour plots. I've attached some screenshots of the model for viewing(can provide more if needed). I designed the structure to BS8110. Any materials (PDFs, Videos, Links, Examples...) to help me understand the concept especially how to provide reinforcements from the contour plots would be greatly appreciated. I've already tried adding strips but the details generated for the slabs in the radial part of the structure is not concise. My plan is to get the reinforcement from the Finite Element Design and detail the slab with Tekla Structures because of the ease of modelling reinforcements in virtually any angle. 

Thanks for your anticipated responses.   

1. Finite Element Top Rebar Intensity.png

2. Story Plan.png

3. 3d Model.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes contours plots are more (comparatively) realistic than strip reinforcement and economical too. Think of it as you have reinforcement in the form of powder. You put the reinforcement powder (or form like that) on slab based on fea contours. Economical, realistic, interesting and easy. Isnt it?

Now unfortunately we dont have powder reinforcement (or atleast i dont know). And we are left with reinforcement bars. For that we need to have some assumptions; width of bar strip width assuming a single bar will cover the contoured reinforcement in a limited width. Complex right.

But you have the ability to draw strips in SAFE. But for that you have to decide things like;

Strip width

Orientation of strips

Layers of strips

Now that is simple for simple slabs and geometry but complex in your case. But there is no other solution. You gotta decide (based on experience, economy etc) how and at what angle you gonna lay your strips (like actual site conditions). Lets say you find out that 45 degree strips give you more economical reinforcement (probably because fea contours are 45 degrees w.r.t. principal axes of plan). So you on actual site you put the same layout plus any additional reinforcement given by SAFE.

So far now we dealt with orientation but what about strip width? Well thats variable practice. According to ACI you can have a very large strip like middle strip averaging all the fea contours in this width. Some people use 1m width (thats very conservative i think, happen a lot in middle east but not in Asia). Because practices worldwide differ due to different economies among other minor factors.

For point loads I would not go for a 1m strip. It depend on the location of point load and its spreadout relative to boundary conditions. Check with your industry practice about this.

For strip layers, SAFE give you total strip area. Its you who then decide (by changing covers) that how to split total reinforcement in how many layers.

Now things really get interesting if you have 12 top and 12 bottoms layers (so cover is huge factor now) with some layers orientation different than others plus extent of some layers is also variable. And I know how crazy this is to handle with SAFE.

But if you do have a better reinforcement software you could use that. So it all depend on your interprettation.

For the high values of concentrated reinforcement it all depend on how would you average out the contours. Is the concentration due to point load? Is it due to a corner, mesh, singularity in FEA solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Rana Waseem, that is a brilliant response.

I'll remodel the strips with respect to the local axes I assigned to the slab panels to get proper mesh transitioning and re run the analysis, design and detailing. I'll share the results when I'm done. The only problem with the strips is that there is no flexibility in modelling the exact width needed as the start and end points only have (x inputs) would have been better if there was an option for (x,y inputs). More so the Auto Widen Strip function does not help much with strips at angles other than 0 or 90 degrees. I'll try out some configurations and post the results.

Back to the Finite Element Analysis Solution. In this day and age I seriously doubt the possibility of a Structural Engineer not coming across complex floor systems. Architects and Engineers alike can be very imaginative (we can't hide from it :)). From The Concrete Centre publication "HOW TO DESIGN REINFORCED CONCRETE FLAT SLABS USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS by O Brooker" in pg.12 "Interpreting results: The results from an FE analysis will generally be in the form of contour plots of stresses and forces, although a ‘section’ through the contour plots (either bending moment or areas of steel) can usually be obtained. These will show very large peaks in bending moment at the supports. The temptation to provide reinforcement to resist this peak moment should be avoided. This potential error stems from a lack of understanding of the assumptions made in the modelling. The reinforcement in the concrete will yield at the support position and the moment will be distributed across a larger area; it is not therefore necessary to design to resist this peak moment. However, a method is required for distributing this peak moment across a larger area." I would like to share the PDF with you but I'm not sure about the forum rules concerning that. From the above statement, the large intensities I'm getting at the Beam/Column supports (joints) are to be expected but then it still takes me back to my initial question, "How do I use the plot to provide reinforcement for the slab?" More so, the concept of "AVERAGING" keeps popping with FEA Solutions. Let's say for instance we don't have the luxury of adding strips and the only option is to use FEA to design the slab, how would you do it ? If there is an approach on how to get this done it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your anticipated response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried something else,

From The Concrete Centre publication "HOW TO DESIGN REINFORCED CONCRETE FLAT SLABS USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS by O Brooker" in pg.13 "An alternative method is to simply average the bending moment over a width of slab. However, if designing to Eurocode 2 the requirements of Cl.9.4.1(2) should be adopted. The widths of these strips can be determined by the designer; an example is shown by the green line in Figure 13. Here the same strip widths as the BS 8110 method have been adopted to show how the results compare. This method has the advantage that it can be used for a slab with irregular geometry, because a fixed bay width is not required. It can also be used with area of steel results, removing the need to calculate the reinforcement areas by hand. It will be seen that both methods give a similar distribution of reinforcement when applied to the same strip widths."

I used a Max. Average width of 1m and got the following results.....

4. Finite Element Slab Design settings .png

5. Top Rebar Intensity Direction 1.png

6. Bottom Rebar Intensity Direction 1.png

7. Top Rebar Intensity Direction 2.png

8. Bottom Rebar Intensity Direction 2.png

9. Fig 13.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • WR1 featured this topic

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.