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.

Omar Khalid

Slab deflection in ETABS

Recommended Posts

Hello,

While I was modeling a 20 story building with symmetrical concrete slab sections and loads in each story, I noticed that the deflection of the slab increases the more I go higher in elevations despite having the same sections, dimensions and loads.

I know that floors with symmetrical shapes and loads must endure the same stresses so it has the same reinforcement.

Can someone explain this behavior or explains why it occurs if I was wrong ?

Thanks in advance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless the combination I choose to look for settlements. it's always increasing the higher I go. I've seen people modeling on youtube having the same problem except they don't talk about it like it's a normal thing. does it have anything related to vertical settlements of columns and walls ?

You can try it by yourself on etabs to check I'm right or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't have it. If you want to investigate it please provide what combinations are governing.

Here is what you should do:

1) Do a gravity only analysis use load factor of 1 to see what results you are getting.

2) Do a lateral only analysis to see what results you are getting without any gravity load.

3) Compare results and check model for errors.

Just because other people are getting the same problem, doesn't mean the problem is there. We need to define a basis. I don''t use ETABS so I can't do checks on my own. If you want my input, please provide the results as requested above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this deflection shows in Etabs is global deflection, this will increase due to axial and lateral deformation of the members globally,

if you check deflection individuallly with respect to each floor value than u will find the same deflection

Share this post


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

You shouldn't have it. If you want to investigate it please provide what combinations are governing.

Here is what you should do:

1) Do a gravity only analysis use load factor of 1 to see what results you are getting.

2) Do a lateral only analysis to see what results you are getting without any gravity load.

3) Compare results and check model for errors.

Just because other people are getting the same problem, doesn't mean the problem is there. We need to define a basis. I don''t use ETABS so I can't do checks on my own. If you want my input, please provide the results as requested above.

1) due to dead load only (own weight) the building tends to undergo a displacement in the x axis (horizontal displacement) the maximum displacement is 1 cm at the roof. Cause I have a stair wall with 2 elevator cores at one side of the building.

2) No earthquake or wind loads being applied yet. Only dead and live and slab deflections still increases when you go up.

3) No errors in my model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, miqureshi77 said:

this deflection shows in Etabs is global deflection, this will increase due to axial and lateral deformation of the members globally,

if you check deflection individuallly with respect to each floor value than u will find the same deflection

Can you tell me how to check it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Omar Khalid said:

1) due to dead load only (own weight) the building tends to undergo a displacement in the x axis (horizontal displacement) the maximum displacement is 1 cm at the roof. Cause I have a stair wall with 2 elevator cores at one side of the building.

That is due to unsymmetrical stiffness of vertical members. This however isn't the subject of our discussion.

3 hours ago, Omar Khalid said:

2) No earthquake or wind loads being applied yet. Only dead and live and slab deflections still increases when you go up.

Are you using any live load reduction factors? What is the difference in vertical deflection of the slab in 2 consecutive floors and what is the location of that maximum vertical deflection?

 

Edited by Ayesha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maximum deflection in the first floor is 8.4 mm
2nd floor is 9.4 mm

3rd is 10.6 mm

4th is 11.65 mm

5th 12.6 mm
etc the 20th 20.5 mm

 

These are maximum deflections in each slab (same place) with dead load only (self weight only)

Share this post


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

These are maximum deflections in each slab (same place) with dead load only (self weight only)

Omar, when you are reporting maximum deflections I assume that you mean maximum vertical deflections and it is relative not absolute. I still can't get my head around the fact that you have so much deflection difference even for gravity load case. 

I will look further in this. I don't have an answer on top of my head. I also request other forum members to share there thoughts about this question.

Edited by Ayesha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your model is correct, this increasing value of vertical displacement is due to the elastic shortening of the vertical supporting elements ( columns and cores). These elements are mainly loaded with compression stresses, which causes the reduction of its height and consequently, the increase of the slab deflection (vertical displacement).   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ayesha said:

Omar, when you are reporting maximum deflections I assume that you mean maximum vertical deflections and it is relative not absolute. I still can't get my head around the fact that you have so much deflection difference even for gravity load case. 

I will look further in this. I don't have an answer on top of my head. I also request other forum members to share there thoughts about this question.

No. It's maximum vertical displacement absolute not relative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the building is regular as you said with same column sizes, axial shortening should be same provided loading and gemoetry all are same and symmetrical. Gravity deflection on same combination should be same at each level. And by deflection i mean z deflection not x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, W. Alkady said:

If your model is correct, this increasing value of vertical displacement is due to the elastic shortening of the vertical supporting elements ( columns and cores). These elements are mainly loaded with compression stresses, which causes the reduction of its height and consequently, the increase of the slab deflection (vertical displacement).   

That's what I was thinking, but the maximim reinforcement of a column at the base is 1.3-2 % which indicates which indicates small loads

 

I will try to screen shot it when I get home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rana said:

If the building is regular as you said with same column sizes, axial shortening should be same provided loading and gemoetry all are same and symmetrical. Gravity deflection on same combination should be same at each level. And by deflection i mean z deflection not x.

 It's not entirely symmetrical I have 4 L shaped shear walls at the corners. Same thickness and nearly close lengths

 

the columns are symmetrical right and left sides with the same dimensions but not symmetrical in the Y axis

That's why I have a displacement of 1 cm at the roof in the y axis

 

but that shouldn't cause vertical displacement

 

note that the first floor has 8.4 mm vertical deflection while when I export the story to safe it gives me 2 mm deflection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I think I have found what's wrong but don't know how to fix it.

I drew the slab on SAFE and I have obtained the beams moments and slab deflections and they were very far away from ETABS results. However, there is an option to check it for columns and walls in SAFE it's called :

''Automatic rigid-zone area over column''  When I uncheck it, it gives nearly the exact deflection and beams moment in ETABS

This option means the following from CSI america's website :

''Rigid zones are used to model the physical overlap between columns/walls and slab, which prevents deformation of the slab at the column location. This also will have the effect of producing maximum design moments at face of columns/walls instead of center line of columns/walls.  This in turn will produce less reinforcement and hence a more economical design, and allowed by most codes(i.e ACI-318). Deformations also will be more realistic in this case.''

So I assume applying a rigid zone is more realistic but somehow it's not assigned in ETABS and I don't know how to assign it in ETABS.

What are your thoughts ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey man, hold on. Your building isnt symmetrical. Also the theres difference between axial stiffness of cols vs walls. This will effect z direction deflections from bottom to top stories.

2nd thing..safe..in safe deflections will be different than in etabs. This has been discussed no of times here and you can search.

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 waqar saleem
      1-how to calculate deflection for a t-beam?
      2-will it be different from the rectangular beam?
      3-will concrete strength effect the deflection?
    • By Waqas Haider
      Assalam o alaikum,
      For assuring deflection check of flexural members, we compare immediate deflection due to live load with L/180 or L/360. Also we compare total deflection (sum of immediate deflection due live load and long term deflection due to "dead +sustained loads") with L/240 or L/480.
      These deflections are calculated using corresponding effective moment of inertia "Ie" using equation 9-8 of section 9.5.2.3.
      To find out immediate deflection due to dead load we find out it using Ie calculated using cracking moment due to dead loads.
      To find out immediate deflection due to sustained loads we find out it using cracking moment due to sustained loads.
      To find out immediate deflection due to D+L  we find out it using cracking moment due to dead + live loads.
      But to find out immediate deflection due to live load, we don't find it using cracking moment due to live load. We find out it by the difference of deflection due to dead + live load with the deflection due to dead load only.
      as shown by following results of manual calculations (Results from example 10.1 of PCA notes of ACI 318)
      Del.dead = 0.098 in      (calculated using Ma due to dead load only and corresponding Ie came out to be 10648 in4 = i.e. Ig because Ma is less than cracking moment)
      Del.live = 0.0744 (calculated using Ma due to live only and corresponding  Ie came out to be 10648 in4 = i.e. Ig because Ma is less than cracking moment)
      Del.(dead+live) = 0.344 in (calculated using Ma due to dead+live combo and corresponding  Ie came out to be 5345 in4 < Ig because Ma is greater than cracking moment)
      Note that 0.344 is not the simple sum of 0.098(Del.dead) + 0.0744 (Del.live) because here for Del.live, Ie used was based on live only i.e. Ig =10648 in4; for Del.dead, Ie used was based on dead load only i.e. Ig = 10648 in4; and for Del.(dead+live) Ie used was based on (dead+live) load combo i.e. 5345 in4.
      All three "Ie" are different".
       
      My question is, how to cater this in etabs modeling because in etabs it simply super impose deflections due to dead and live for D+L combo which must not be the case. More over, does modifier 0.35 is enough to cater effect of effective moment of inertia?
      Thanks.
       
       
       
       
       
    • By Hira Malik
      While checking the allowable deflection in member in ETABS, which deflection is to be considered, absolute or relative? Which one represents the actual deflection of the member?
    • By Ahmad Shabaneh
      I work in a project with large spans (9.2m X 8m) and large service loads (4kn/m^2 SDL+Partitions), (7.5kn/m^2 Live load)
      In modeling the project on ETABS I set the property modifiers for slab (thin shell as 0.25) and this affected the deflection in slabs ( about 5 cm deflection from service loads)
      Hence: Slab thickness is 22 cm and interior beams 50X50 and the owner didn't allowed to increase the thickness
      Any suggestions to solve the problem.  
    • By Nasir Malhi
      Do etabs or sap has allowable deflection checks for beams if it is analysed and designed through these softwares.
    • By Omer Anwaar
      This particular slab (19x18 ft) is expereincing too much displacement, giving rise to very close spacing in slab panel in the middle strip. It has three interior beams placed to carry line load of the walls above. How can this displacement be reduced?
      Slab 19x18.bmp
    • By danny740
      Hi,

      I have a problem with  a simply supported deep beam which has a uniformly distributed load. The beam is simply supported at both ends but I have to consider the results for the following 3 scenarios
      - where the support is at the bottom of each end of the beam
      - where the support is at the mid point at each end of the beam
      - where support is at top of each end of the beam

      I have run this using FEA and I'm finding significantly different deflections and stresses when the beam is supported at the midpoint at its end and the other two scenarios...can anyone explain the exact reasoning for this?

      Sincere thanks
       
      Daniel
  • Recent Discussions

  • Latest Forum and Club Posts

×

Important Information

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