Leaderboard

*SEFP Consistent Design* *Diaphragm Flexibility* *Doc No: 10-00-CD-0004* *Date: August 07, 2014* I am writing this article about a very important, but mostly neglected topic of flexibility of diaphragm. I used to assume that all reinforced concrete slabs can be treated as rigid diaphragms. But as it turns out, only the slab with span-to-depth (depth is length of slab in direction of lateral loads) ratio of less than 3 and without horizontal irregularity can be treated as rigid diaphragm. The more important thing is that the span-to-depth ratio and horizontal irregularity is not the only criteria and one other factor also needs to be kept in mind before assigning rigid diaphragm to concrete slabs in numerical model of building. Another important concept that I learned, and it was a moment of epiphany for me, is about TRANSFER diaphragms. I had posted a topic “Amplification Of Forces In Etabs” earlier in this forum but we were not able to reach at a satisfactory conclusion. Now, I have the answer to that query: Back Stay effect. Another article is required to explain it , and this concept is not discussed in this article. This article is about flexibility of diaphragm. Diaphragms are horizontal members of the lateral-force resisting system of building structures. Their function is to distribute inertial forces, generated at its own level, as well as other levels, to vertical members of lateral-force resisting system. One kind of diaphragm only distributes inertial forces generated at its own level. This kind of behaviour is observed in buildings where there is a continuity of vertical members of lateral-force resisting system: building should not have a setback or podium at lower levels, or below grade levels. The other kind of diaphragm, known as “Transfer diaphragm”, not only distributes inertial forces generated at its own level, but also re-distributes forces coming from upper levels. This type of behaviour is typical of a building having setback or podium at lower levels, or below grade levels. Transfer slabs can attract huge forces due to a behaviour dubbed as BACKSTAY EFFECT. Now, coming to the issue of flexibility of diaphragm. According to ASCE 7-10, In addition to considering aspect ratio and horizontal irregularity as a basis for assuming concrete slab as a rigid diaphragm, the relative stiffness of adjoining vertical lateral load resisting system. Buildings with shear walls at ends and flexible frames in between are the ones where the assumption of rigid diaphragm leads to underestimation of drifts and erroneous distribution of base shear in vertical as well as horizontal direction (1)(2)(3); shear forces in middle frames can be reduced to 23% if rigid diaphragm is assigned in the model (1) for buildings with this type of structural configuration. M. Moeini et al. (2008) (3) conducted a parametric study using numerical analysis and proposed formulae that predicts the error associated with assuming concrete slab as rigid diaphragm. They also concluded that for buildings, without shear walls, rigid diaphragm assumption is suitable for irregular buildings as well. But, for long and narrow buildings with shear walls at ends, the assumption of rigid diaphragm is not suitable. The objective of writing this article was to warn engineers about the tendency of blindly assigning rigid diaphragm to concrete slab in any type of building configuration. The result could be underestimation of forces as well as drifts. Nakashima, M., Huang, T., Lu, L-W. “ Effect of Diaphragm Flexibility on Seismic Response of Building Structures”, In proceedings of 8th world conference on earthquake engineering. San Luis Obispo, MSc Thesis , “ An Investigation of influence of diaphragm flexibility on building design through comparison of forced vibration testing and computational analysis”, 2010. M. Moeini, B. Rafzey, W.P. Howsen, “Investigation into the floor diaphragm flexibility in rectangular reinforced concrete buildings and error formulae”, In proceedings of 14th world conference on earthquake engineering. The article is not finalized and would be completed in coming weeks.

I came across this very useful article. Here is the summary of the article: Thanks. Location of Base for Seismic Design.pdf

To add to this, Minimum thickness above bottom of concrete reinforcement prescribed for concrete footing is: Reinforced Concrete Footing on Soil: 6 inches (Section 15.7) Reinforced Concrete Footing on Piles: 12 inches (Section 15.7) Minimum Thickness of Plain Concrete Footing on Soil: 8 inches (Section 22.7.4) Plain Concrete Footings on piles are not permitted (Section 22.7.3)

Thank you :-)

Bowel has also indicated this reference and has discussed in detail for mats. It helps in assessing the behavior of raft. You are right and for experienced persons judgement should be given due weightage

In order to assess the rigidity of mat please refer to ACI 336.2 R88 http://civilwares.free.fr/ACI/MCP04/3362r_88.pdf

WaoOO Its near my Town Yup the Bridge undergone Servicebility Failure long time ago and the middle pier is settling from time to time as the scour is happening, when there is good amount of water flowing around its pier.

first of all select the beams and then go to ASSIGN. see the attached screen shots for better understanding..... Hope it will work

In Pakistan we Civil engineers use code of ethics by Pakistan Engineering Council. The link to these ethics is provided here. Code of Ethics There is also code of conduct by Pakistan Engineering Council. Code of Conduct Regards

i have experience in making load combinations in etabs at quite complex level...believe it or not for some buildings i have made 200 ultimate and 200 service combinations...i really hate the etabs combination dialogue box which cannot be resized...unlike SAFE! where you can export it into excel! anyway this sheets i just designed for my own custom application...thought to share with you guyz if you find it helping..