×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

SAP vs ETABS

SAP vs ETABS

SAP vs ETABS

(OP)
The structure that I am trying to model has a strange shape. The shape of a butterfly (two wings and a small "core" between this wings).It is a steel structure. It has 21 levels. In our country, because it is a seismic one, the building's elements are "sized by the Earthquake".
    I have made a model in Etabs and everything seemed to be perfect .. too perfect. The building has in the first two modes "pure" translation and mass participations is over 65%. From my point of view it was something strange .. because I could not understand how can that small core hold the two big wings to work together.
    So I modeled in SAP and the same structure had a total diferent behaviour. The way I expected. The wings are approacing or departing, they do not translate  as a "whole" like in etabs. But the forces in sap are huge (It is imposible to make such enormous elements).The difference between SAP and etabs in terms of efforts is almost triple.
    The concrete slab I modeled in both cases with shell (The shell was mesh) and I degraded the modulus of elasticity a thousand times.
The both models are identical. There are no warnings, the models have passed trough others persons to be verified and the conclusion was that they  are identical and correct, but they did not have any explanation for the different outcomes (results).
 My dilemma is why this difference? Which can I rely on?
 The attached file is a plan view.. This a plan from other attempts, with the slab as a membrane, because of that the mesh isn't visible.

RE: SAP vs ETABS

CdeDo,
Have you used the "rigid diaphragm" feature in Etabs? This might explain it.

RE: SAP vs ETABS

(OP)
Nope.. I did not :D

RE: SAP vs ETABS

Well then, possible answers are a lot. Yet, it is impractical to continue guessing.

RE: SAP vs ETABS

I would second geosan, check the rigid diaphragm assignment either to point objects or to the slab. I agree that there is no way a core can hold the wings.

RE: SAP vs ETABS

(OP)
I solved the problem reinstalling Etabs.  

RE: SAP vs ETABS

The meshing in your model does not look good. Meshing needs to be carried through to adjacent area elements. ETABS, by default, uses a line constraint which connects/zips together adjacent elements which do not share mesh points. That way, ETABS will give a result even with a poor mesh by attempting to interpolate between the closest mesh joints which may be relatively far apart.

With SAP2000, the line constraint (called "edge" constraint in SAP) is turned off by default.  

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources