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.

Negative Stiffness Eigenvalues


alwaeli
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dear members,

Using ETABS 16.2 version, when setting the stiffness modifiers for my slabs (shell-thin) to 1.0, the run goes smooth without warring and I will get reasonable mode periods. However, when I modify the m11, m22, and m12 stiffness to 0.5 for my slabs and run the model again, I got some negative stiffness eigenvalues in my P-Delta analysis and no modal analysis is made! When I tried 0.9 instead of 0.5, no warnings! Tried 0.8, warnings came back!

By the way, there is no warnings and or errors  when perform "check model". Everything is ok. Attached is my ETABS file for your reference. Please advice if you have faced similar problem?

ETABS Model.rar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the answer from CSI Wiki. I have also highlighted the portion of response that I think is most applicable to your case.

Thanks.

Quote

to start of metadata

 

Why do I get negative stiffness during P-Delta analysis?

Extended Question: When I get negative stiffness(i.e Diagonal<0), and P-Delta analysis does not converge, does this indicate instability and buckling?

Answer: Convergence problems may correlate with P-Delta behavior. Inadequate member capacity and insufficient structural support may lead to instability and buckling. Excessively large stiffness values may also disrupt convergence by causing numerical problems which adversely affect computation.

When a model fails under P-Delta, increase the size and/or quantity of columns and bracing to improve lateral capacity, and thereby avoid buckling. Walls that have been modeled uising membrane type area element (never recommended) or shells with unrealistic thickness and or low stiffness modifiers can buckle and cause convergence issues.  As an alternative, you may also refine the factors and/or loads applied during analysis.

It may be best to troubleshoot the model without P-Delta until you are confident that behavior is appropriate. If problems persist with geometric non-linearity, it may be helpful to run, after the P-Delta load case, a modal analysis which uses Stiffness At The End Of This Stage. Modal analysis may then reveal the source and location of instability.

Buckling can also occur in horizontal floor elements  such as beams and floors, if the floors take in plane loads (i.e have no diaphragm or semi rigid diaphragm) and have insufficient capacity, due to structural properties or small stiffness  modifiers. Using  rigid diaphragms and checking if the analysis converges can help rule out this as the cause of the problem.

Additional suggestions which may resolve negative-stiffness errors include:

  • Remove auto line constraints. Select all deck/shell objects in the model, then select Assign > Shell Elements > Auto Line Constraint and uncheck the Apply to Full Structure option. This will remove auto line constraints and possibly resolve instabilities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Umar,

Your response is appreciated. I will try the suggestions in your quote and update you with the results.

Meantime, I need to ask you about the best way to mesh floor slabs in multi-story building ETABS model? Will it program default AutoMesh or manual meshing? Keep in mind that on each floor, I have different values of superimposed dead/live loads on different locations in the slab. I really need to know your perspective on that as most of the problems I normally face with the results are caused by the slab meshing.

 

Regards,

Eng. Wael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additional suggestions which may resolve negative-stiffness errors include:

  • Remove auto line constraints. Select all deck/shell objects in the model, then select Assign > Shell Elements > Auto Line Constraint and uncheck the Apply to Full Structure option. This will remove auto line constraints and possibly resolve instabilities.

 

Dear Umar,

The above suggestion works! thank you.

However, I would love to understand the engineering behind it. How line constraint is affecting the stability of the floors in P-Delta analysis when the slab stiffness modifier is reduced from 1.0 to 0.5 for instance? Do you have some sort of technical explanation to that?

 

Best regards,

Wael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, alwaeli said:

Dear Umar,

Your response is appreciated. I will try the suggestions in your quote and update you with the results.

Meantime, I need to ask you about the best way to mesh floor slabs in multi-story building ETABS model? Will it program default AutoMesh or manual meshing? Keep in mind that on each floor, I have different values of superimposed dead/live loads on different locations in the slab. I really need to know your perspective on that as most of the problems I normally face with the results are caused by the slab meshing.

 

Regards,

Eng. Wael

Engr. Wael,

The best approach that I have seen is to apply slab loads in ETABS directly on Beams.

For that you will need to manually resolve slabs forces to beams which doesn’t take much time. The upside of this approach is that your model is very clean and without flimsy meshing errors. That is the recommended approach based on my experience. 

You can always later draw slabs in SAFE and design them there. Now regarding why did auto-line constraint fixed your error; I don’t exactly know the answer to that. CSI might be able to answer this question. You can ask them if you have a licensed software and it would be great if you can share the response here as well :)

Thanks.

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.