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.

Centre to Centre Modeling


Kainaat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

Why we do centre to centre modleing in Etabs? I placed the columns as shown in figure 1 by seeing the structurual plan but people in my office says it is the wrong way of doing it, so do centre modeling. then I draw figure 3 but due to centre modeling the beam become inclined. 

What is the correct way of modeling?

1.PNG

2.PNG

3.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Center to center modelling assumption helps engineers create simple models to represent real life situations. For low-rise typical buildings, the margin of error due to centre to centre modelling is negligible (for most cases).

Here is the explanation for why should you do centre to centre modelling for your case posted above. The columns are pretty wide and the irony is that you have only 1 node to join the column to. That node is at the centre of the column. If you don't draw centre to centre, you are actually resting your beams on top of other beams instead of column. This will result in a conservative beam design.

 

Edited by Ayesha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me its acceptable as you cover more slab area under an inclined beam (so more load on beam). Just check the FFB-17 manually to make sure it is not being undersigned (due to smaller length that actual in the model).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not find a clear reference for this. This brings us to another topic of uncertainty (As structural engineers, we deal it every day).

Of course, this problem in the post could be more rationally solved by sound engineering judgement, but I want to highlight the approximate methods.

When there is uncertainty, try to be consistent all the time. Errors and approximations are obvious in structural analysis. Just keep consistency.

For example, personally I'd like to keep the Y/X in these cases, less than 10% (strictly speaking 8% based on 500 Y and 6000mm X). Set a criteria for yourself and follow the same approach in modelling assumptions.

What are these X and Y, well Y is the center to center distance of columns, and X is the distance between these columns (or the span of beam).

What I could discern from the provided image is that;

Y=1.8'

X=5.3+7.5=12.8'

so the beam connecting center to center has an in-plane slope of 14%.

a. Of course the first approach in the pictures provided is not accurate as other members have pointed out.

b. Second approach is also not suitable as the slope is more than 8%.

However, This could still be done if column sizes are more than adequate as compared to spans and loading.

In your cases the bigger column size is almost 28 inches, so in my opinion should not have much problem due to this eccentricity.

But.....visually the situation looks awkward, although ETABS is not Sketchup, but things like that will draw attention of the reviewer/checker of your models and probably will focus more in this area. In order to avoid this use option c below.

3. Model the bigger column as a shell element with just one support point (important) at the base.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should do center to center modelling for this structure and to capture the eccentricity, you can either model the column as shell element like Sir Rana said or you can use insertion points for beams, always look at the extruded view to know the actual arrangement of the elements you're modelling. I'll illustrate the use of insertion points, you can use the approach you find suitable. Insertion points will capture real world behavior by keeping your Finite Element model closer to reality. 

Consider the 2 beams below, the are exactly the same, they look exactly the same.

1.PNG.f6b28480d2793f03daad4e06a1c0e0c6.PNG

 

We'll select the beam on the right hand side and go to assign>frame>insertion points. And "insert" the beam with eccentricity of 250 mm at both ends. End-I with a positive eccentricity and End-J with a negative eccentricity, (don't forget to uncheck the box!)

2.PNG.8554a9384011748d963019bd2d261fb7.PNG

Then we look at the extruded shape again, we notice that the beam is inclined now (which matches your case). If we look at the "unextruded" view, both beams will look the same.

3.thumb.PNG.5c34140ab0a6af3043807c113f59a070.PNG

We run the model, we can see that the values for shear force are different because ETABS is calculating forces based on inclined length.

 6.PNG.de55e19013f0fc6a934cc0f7d01848bc.PNG

If eccentricity is captured, there should be a moment in 2-2 direction. Which we can see is there and is numerically equal to P*e = 30103.99*0.25 = 7526 kN-m7.PNG.10a7d7237c31acefd76e7a4da0d95d60.PNG

 

Hope this helps.

 

Edited by Saad Pervez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks alot for the help, I am designing first time without anyone supervision. 

I will check the model using case b (the one i proposed), using shell element ( bit hard but i will try) and thirdly the way mr saad illustrated. 

I will share the results for further discussion if required. It is only one storey residential structure designed for gravity load.

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.