×
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!

*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

seismic results generated from software
4

seismic results generated from software

seismic results generated from software

(OP)
hello eng-tips gang hope everything is in good order and you've had wonderful holidays
happy new year to all

i am here again to ask for your input on this problem

i modeled up a steel structure in software(etabs) and was analyzing lateral loads on said structure and
found the some results to be as below



as you can see the chevrons are carrying about 40kips

but the beam sharing the joint with the chevron is carrying around 5kips

i was expecting to see something more like this image below with lateral building up until it reaches
the chevron and then some trig ratio to get to the chevron force



second example is a bit simplified i was just testing to see what would happen

anyways would like to hear your opinion on this matter

thanks

RE: seismic results generated from software

Do you have a diaphragm that could be carrying the load into those braces?

This is especially common when people model "semi-rigid" diaphragms where you use plate elements. Typically, I would still design the drag / collector elements as if the force were dragged through them. But, the diaphragm (from an FEM/ stiffness standpoint) probably carries more of the load.

RE: seismic results generated from software

2
You probably have a rigid diaphragm modeled on the roof level.

A rigid diaphragm enforces every node on a level to "move together" (zero in-plane axial deformation). I'm not sure how ETABS treats rigid diaphragms. Some software generates rigid many internal link members, while others perform kinematic condensation where the number of DOF in the structure actually reduces.

That said, since the ends of the collector beams move the same amount => no axial deformation => no force. This is what I would assume is happening.

However, I believe your intuition about what should happen is correct. You need to consider those axial forces in the beam when designing collectors.

RE: seismic results generated from software

wcfrobert -

I think you're essentially correct. I would have said the same thing, except that he does have SOME axial force in his members. This should not be possible with a rigid diaphragm. That's why I thought it was likely to be a semi-rigid diaphragm instead.

RE: seismic results generated from software

Agree with the others on the reason you are getting that distribution of loads. As far as the FEM model is concerned the horizontal component of the brace loads basically goes straight into the slab. In reality this is obviously unrealistic if for example you have distributed shear studs along the collector beam and potentially beams in adjacent bays that will transfer the seismic shear into the slab over some appropriate length.

Aspects like this require some judgement rather than full reliance on the model results to give you all the loads and load paths involved. You have potentially correctly assumed that for the load to get into the slab it has to go through the steel members to some degree. You might need to manually assess this load transfer.

RE: seismic results generated from software

(OP)
thanks for the help guys

i turned off visibility on a membrane i had put on earlier in the model to get the slab load and forgot to turn off inplane stiffness
and was the culprit.

=(((

either way in reality this structure has a form deck(22ga. non composite) screwed onto support beams (12" CRS) with a concrete topping
no shear studs

with this configuration i don't think the slab would contribute, only the decking

what's your opinion on using diaphragm action with the decking or would you be conservative and ignore this?




RE: seismic results generated from software

There is nothing wrong with using it during the analysis. But, I still make sure the beams were capable of resisting the larger axial load. And, I would make sure that may deck to beam details where sufficient for transferring the shear into the beam too.

RE: seismic results generated from software

(OP)
@JoshPlumSE, @Agent666, @wcfrobert noted

thanks for the responses guys, appreciate it

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

eBook - Functional Prototyping Using Metal 3D Printing
Functional prototypes are a key step in product development – they give engineers a chance to test new ideas and designs while also revealing how the product will stand up to real-world use. And when it comes to functional prototypes, 3D printing is rewriting the rules of what’s possible. 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