×
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

PROPERTY MODIFIER IN ETABS
2

PROPERTY MODIFIER IN ETABS

PROPERTY MODIFIER IN ETABS

(OP)
HI
Modeling cracked behavior of shear walls in ETABS
1. For shell elements pier-shear walls with default orientation of local axes, the main modifier affects directly on flexural stiffness "EI" is "f22".

2. For shell elements spandrel- beam with default orientation of local axes, the main modifier affects directly on flexural stiffness "EI" is "f11".

ACI318-08 code declared in its commentary “R.8.8.2“ that the modulus of shear modulus may be taken as 0.4Ec, so the shear stiffness modifiers "f12" could be reduced as well.

In general, we can use the following stiffness modifiers for pier-shear walls:
f11=1 , and f22=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.7 for un-cracked walls.
f11=1, and f22=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.35 for cracked walls.
For spandrel shell-modeled beams:
f22=1, and f11=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.35

For shell-modeled deep wall spandrel-outriggers under high level of horizontal and vertical stresses:
f11=f22=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.35

Sometimes, the designer may go lower than those values of stiffness modifiers mentioned in code. This decision depends on designer's judgment on the degree of cracking and the expected degradation in element's stiffness under the cyclic loading and level of developed stresses.
It is good to highlight the followings:
1. Against the expected, ACI318-08 code doesn't discuss the issue of reducing the flexural stiffness modifier under chapter "21" adopted for Earthquake Resistance Structures, even though this issue is quite related to the ductility and design of structures under the attack of earthquake waves.
However ACI code discuss this issue under the clause of slenderness effect in compression members, and to be more specific, when it talks about the design of long/slender columns which are extremely affected by the second order displacement/moment result from lateral load such wind & earthquake load. In this regard: it is so clear that reducing the flexural stiffness will lead to increase the lateral displacement caused by lateral load and then increasing the second order moment effect "P-Delta" called-phenomena.
2. Reducing the flexural stiffness affects directly on structure stability index (equation 10-10 in ACI318-08).
3. Ductility of structure may measure by the degree of flexural cracking takes place under the reversal/cyclic seismic load.
These cracks grow up from cycle to the other result in degradation in element’s stiffness. And for high-ductile special structures the degree of degradation quite differs from this observed for low-ductile structures. However ACI code releases up to 2005 edition have no such distinction in the value of stiffness modifiers between special, intermediate and ordinary structures, whereas the latest edition ACI318-08 start show such difference as shown on equations “10-8” & “10-9”.

RE: PROPERTY MODIFIER IN ETABS

Here are a few documents that discuss the issue a bit. Shear stiffness in particular gets punished in regions of high plasticity. Stiffness modifier recommendations come in as low as 1/20 x uncracked.

Link

Link

Link

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: PROPERTY MODIFIER IN ETABS

(OP)
Thanks Kootk

RE: PROPERTY MODIFIER IN ETABS

Important thing to note is that you cannot decouple axial and bending behavior in shell elements. If you apply a f22 or f11 factor (depending on your local axis), the axial and bending stiffnesses are affected simultaneously.

RE: PROPERTY MODIFIER IN ETABS

That's interesting Slick. Can you elaborate at all? If one modifies both multipliers, do they compound?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: PROPERTY MODIFIER IN ETABS

In ETABS, for example, bending and axial stiffness is controlled through F22. You can have any value in the F11 parameter and it won't make any appreciable difference.

If you applied a F11 factor of 0.01, you will find that the lateral and gravity deflections of that wall are the same as an uncracked wall (i.e. F11 = F22 = F12 = 1.0)
If you only applied a F22 factor of 0.1, you will find that you reduced the lateral stiffness (and axial stiffness) by 90%.
If you applied a F12 factor of 0.1 in conjunction with F22, you will find that lateral deformations may increase a little more or a lot more (depending on shear deformations). F12 factor will have a larger effect on a short squat wall compared to a long, slender wall.

RE: PROPERTY MODIFIER IN ETABS

Bending and axial stiffness for WALLS is controlled through F22. For spandrels (horizontal) it is controlled through F11.

RE: PROPERTY MODIFIER IN ETABS

This isn't unique to Etabs. Bending stiffness is the same as axial (tension/compression) stiffness and can't be decoupled in a shell.

MKasem - When modeling spandrels using shells in Etabs beware of the affect of meshing and the internal functions of Etabs (internal meshing and auto line constraint). If you play around with line elements vs shell elements and varying meshes for both you will see results all over the place. Shells as spandrels usually require intermediate meshing to get a reasonable behavior, while line elements connected to shell walls actually require that you not mesh too fine or the fixity is thrown off (counter-intuitive).

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

White Paper – Your Construction ERP RFP Checklist
Selecting business software for a medium to enterprise-sized construction concern is extremely challenging in large part because most enterprise resource planning (ERP) suites originated in the world of repetitive manufacturing and are therefore a poor fit for a project and asset-centric business. However, midsize to large contractors need the predictable, auditable processes that ERP delivers. 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