9 posts in this topic

Dear fellows!

I have observed that some senior engineers have not been using stiffness modifiers in their designs. What is the concept behind  i am not clear . As we design RC for strength, section is cracked and to cater for this cracked section, property modifiers are used as per

 ACI 318-11  10.10.4 (stiffness requirement)

 ACI 318-11  8.7 (stiffness requirement)

UBC97 1630.1.2 (modelling requirement)

 so why whole section is considered in design. is there any other logic which i couldn't understand.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RC members in a physical structure crack well below the ultimate load.Therefore using full MOI of the member in idealized model is not justified.

Though the use of full MOI will not affect the total value of bending (positive plus negative), the distribution b/w the members may change considerably.

It is not the absolute MOI that matter,rather it is the relative stiffness of members that must be considered.

In short, these modifiers (reductions in MOI) are used for the calculation of deflections i.e Serviceability checks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EngrJunaid said:

Though the use of full MOI will not affect the total value of bending (positive plus negative), the distribution b/w the members may change considerably.

How is that possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ayesha

Let me demonstrate that statement with a simple 2D frame in ETABS....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the Attached self explanatory picture.

Modifiers.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good comparison!! it means designing with modifiers will give more practical results and better moment redistribution. what is the effect of modifiers on lateral deflection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 0:35 PM, EngrJunaid said:

See the Attached self explanatory picture.

Modifiers.png

The factor of 0.35Ig is not applicable to beams with flanges. For the interior beam, the factor will be around 0.7Ig, and for the edge beam, it will be around 0.5Ig. Moreover, these factors are for un-braced frames; factors are different for braced frames.

 

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 2:22 AM, EngrJunaid said:

The RC members in a physical structure crack well below the ultimate load. Therefore using full MOI of the member in idealized model is not justified.

 Please go through the commentary of the section 8.7.1 of ACI 318-08.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2017 at 4:49 PM, waqar saleem said:

i found another related discussion

another document i found a somewhat good summary for modifiers

https://www.academia.edu/13211701/Stiffness_Modifier

Stiffness_Modifier.pdf

Lol, I was trying to write couple of articles 2 or 3 years ago and uploaded my draft (including the discussion of sefp) on scribd to download something as a trade-off. It was a draft, but if it has helped anyone, this is good to know.

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

  • Similar Content

    • By Waqas Haider
      Assalam o alaikum,
      I am having a building with a semi circle shape. None of the footing is either parallel to global X-axis nor to the global Y-axis. The plan of footings is attached. The problem I am facing is, ETABS reports joint reactions along global X-axis and global Y-axis instead of along the local axes of column. Since my columns are at a degree to global axis, the joint reactions also becomes at a degree from column and footing. Since to use simple combined stress formula of 
      stress = P/A + Mx*Y/Ix + My*X/Iy 
      I need forces along axis of footing. Or i will have to resolve either moment of inertia of footing along direction of forces or vice versa, which is quite tough and time taking. The other option I can go for is to design footing in SAFE. But again here, there i dont find any option to rotate footing at a certain degree to match orientation of columns. If i rotate local axis of footing, It only rotates its local axes and meshing but not the footing physically itself. The orientation of footing remains same. How can i solve this problem? Either having reactions in etabs along local axes of columns can solve my issue so that i can design it manually or rotating footing in safe to match local axes of columns can solve my issue. So can any one guide me how to do either option? Thanks.
    • By groszni awesome
      Assalamualaikum SE Pakistan, im about to design a retaining wall and would like to know is there any option/ is it possible to apply a triangular load on shells/paltes/membrane? or im just gonna model it as a 2D thing?
      regards
    • By BilalAhmad
      I need your help in deciding whether to go for a RCC basement or Pillar foundation for home construction. I am not a civil enginer. I want the home to be constructed on a strong foundation. I have heard from someone that basement makes the home weak in terms of its foundation. For example in earthquake home with a basement can be more vulnerable to cracks or collapse. I have zero knowledge about construction. That is why I need your help.
      Should I go for a RCC basement OR pillars foundation.
      My only concern is that the home should be on a strong foundation. I am planning for ground floor and in future if needed then first floor. Please guide me which way to go.