Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

seismic results generated from software 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
wrxsti

wrxsti

Structural
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
196
Location
JM
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

Untitled_tcfa5k.jpg


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

Untitled2_nespic.jpg


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
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
Diaphragm-Collectors-Sabelli-et-al-2011_j1zeel.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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?




 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@JoshPlumSE, @Agent666, @wcfrobert noted

thanks for the responses guys, appreciate it
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Nicolas R.
  • Locked
  • Question Question
SOFTWARE import into spacegass from REVIT
Replies
3
Views
3K
Greenalleycat
Greenalleycat
SE2607
  • Question Question
Woodworks Software
Replies
11
Views
5K
jhnblgr
jhnblgr
jdgengineer
  • Question Question
Seismic Loads on Site Walls
Replies
4
Views
16K
jdgengineer
jdgengineer
CPBe
  • Question Question
seismic supports straddling building expansion joint
Replies
6
Views
9K
HTURKAK
HTURKAK
C
  • Question Question
Seismic Force When Designing Shear Friction
Replies
3
Views
9K
TRAK.Structural
TRAK.Structural

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top