×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

*
*
*
*

Thanks. We have received your request and will respond promptly.

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!
*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

ETABS Column reactions vs Column Load Take Down

thread802-184745

ETABS Column reactions vs Column Load Take Down

ETABS Column reactions vs Column Load Take Down

(OP)
Hello All:

I am modelling a 10 story concrete 2-way slab/concrete columns/concrete shear wall model in ETABS. I have defined the concrete 2-way slab as a shell.
Now coming to the problem, the reactions I obtain at columns are <50% of what I obtained from column (made sure that column is far from the core) load take down for couple of columns.
I have tried checking every possible cause for error but haven't found any logical explaination of why this is happening?

Any help will be greatly appreciated !!!

RE: ETABS Column reactions vs Column Load Take Down

Hi,

As I understand the situation it seems like the load from the shell is not distributed to the beams (columns) in a two-way fashion. I would suggest that you mesh the shell element after you assigned the surface loads (self wt, live load, snow load .. or whatever)
If you are using ETABS version 9.0.8, try ASSIGN>FRAME/LINE>AUTOMATIC FRAME SUBDIVIDE
ASSIGN>AREA/SHELL>AUTO MESH
(make sure to keep a temporary back-up of the file before meshing)


RE: ETABS Column reactions vs Column Load Take Down

Hi matrixeric

I would suggest to go ahead with inju's suggestion if we are aiming for realistic distribution. Especially it happens for corner/edge columns, where force will be very less compared to manual trib area calculations.

If we want to match with manual method, please go ahead with membrane option and connect the beams (null) on each vertical element. It matches with manual calculation.

Please also check with Tributary area for each column in the ETABS output.

Cheers

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! Already a Member? Login

Resources

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now
Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close