1.

Etabs basics

Codes overview: IS 13920 (Ductile detailing rules)

IS 875_2: (Imposed load)
IS 1893: Earthquake code

Slab diaphragm definition:

Rigid diaphragms have infinite in-plane stiffness properties, and therefore they neither exhibit
membrane deformation nor report the associated forces, whereas semi-rigid diaphragms simulate
actual in-plane stiffness properties and behavior. For most reinforced-concrete slab systems, in which
the slab is sufficiently thick and membrane deformation due to lateral loading is negligible, rigid
diaphragms produce results nearly identical to those of semi-rigid diaphragms, while taking advantage
of faster computation. Semi-rigid diaphragms should be modeled when significant in-plane
deformation does occur, or when required by code.

Primary differences
Formulation The infinite in-plane stiffness components of a rigid diaphragm allows the stiffness
matrix to condense, decreasing computational time.

Eccentricity For rigid diaphragms, the accidental eccentricity associated with seismic loading is
concentrated and applied at the center of mass, whereas for semi-rigid diaphragms, accidental
eccentricity is applied to every node for seismic loads. If no diaphragm is assigned eccentricity will not
be applied to any node. For wind cases and rigid diaphragm , load is applied at geometric centroid,
in case of semi-rigid diaphragm loads are distributed in 10 nodes, so that the summation of these
forces with respect to centroid will be equivalent to lateral and torsional wind cases.

Reporting forces In-plane chord, shear, and collector forces are only reported when using semi-
rigid diaphragms.
In ETABS, shell or area element has two types of stiffnesses i.e. inplane stiffness refers as f11, f22
and f12 and out-of-plane stiffness refers as m11, m22 and m12. Refer to the below Figure which shows
the direction of local axes and their corresponding stiff
For shear wall (both piers and spandrels), the flexural and axial behavior is modified by either f11 or
f22 depending on the orientation of the local axis and the shear behavior is controlled by f12. In column
and code terms f11 or f22 would correspond to modifications of EI or EA and f12 would correspond to
modifications to GAshear. The code recommendations in Section 10.10 of ACI 318 code are related to
slenderness effects where flexural deformations govern so they have recommended modifying EI
(corresponding to f11 or f22 for shear walls). There is no recommendation about reducing the GAshear.
You should, however, note that some of our users use modifiers for f12 also, where they expect
deterioration of shear stiffness and want to be realistic in their modeling.

The above discussion applies assuming the local axes 1 and 2 of the shear wall area object are either
vertical or horizontal. This is under user control. When drawing in ETABS the default is to have the 1
axis horizontal and the 2 axis vertical. This means that the flexural modifier for EI should be applied to
f22 for wall piers and to f11 for spandrels. If you apply the modifier to both f11 and f22 it hardly affects
the results.

For slabs where bending is always in the out-of-plane direction, modifiers m11, m22 and m12 are
required to model cracking behavior.

Summary
Assuming beams and columns are modeled as frame then the stiffness modifier table is as follows:

ACI ETABS

Beams........................................0.35*Ig I22 = I33 = 0.35

Columns....................................0.70*Ig I22 = I33 = 0.70
Walls-Uncracked.................0.70*Ig modeled as shell f11, f22 = 0.70
Walls-Cracked......................0.35*Ig similar to Walls-Uncracked (with modifiers of 0.35)

NOTE:
Walls are generally not designed for out-of-plane bending to avoid excessive longitudinal
reinforcement. In this case, use a small modifier say 0.1 for m11, m22 and m12 so numerical
instabilities could be avoided. However, use m11, m22, m12 = 0.70 (or 0.35) when considering the
out-of-plane bending in wall.

Flat Plates & Flat Slabs....0.25*Ig modeled as membrane f11, f22, f12 = 0.25 /
modeled as shell f11, f22, f12, m11, m22, m12 = 0.25 (for both cases fxx is not important if rigid
diaphragm is assigned)
 Initial P-Delta analysis may be specified in ETABS via Define>P-Delta Options and using either of
the following two methods:

1. Non-iterative Based on Mass, in which load is automatically computed from the mass at each
level. This is an approximate method which does not require an iterative solution, providing for faster
computation. P-Delta is considered by treating the structure as a simplified stick model, a process
which is most effective with a single rigid diaphragm at each level. Local buckling is not captured as
effectively.

The benefit of this non-iterative method is that P-Delta may be considered in load cases which do
not specify gravity load. When gravity load is specified, we generally recommend the Iterative Based
on Load Cases method.
2. Iterative Based on Load Cases, in which load is computed from a specified combination of static
load cases, then known as the P-Delta load combination. This is an iterative method which considers
P-Delta on an element-by-element basis. Local buckling is captured more effectively. An example
application may be when load includes the dead load case and a fraction of a live load case.

When the iterative method is selected, two additional options become available :

Convergence Tolerance (Relative), Iteration is used to make sure that equilibrium is achieved at
each step of the analysis. Use this parameter to set the relative convergence tolerance that is used
to compare the magnitude of force error with the magnitude of the force acting on the structure.
Using a smaller value ensures better equilibrium, although the default value is usually adequate.
P-Delta Load Combination, in which users may specify the single load combination for the initial P-
Delta analysis.

For example, suppose that a building code requires the following load combinations:

(1) 1.4 dead load

(2) 1.2 dead load + 1.6 live load
(3) 1.2 dead load + 0.5 live load + 1.3 wind load
(4) 1.2 dead load + 0.5 live load - 1.3 wind load
(5) 0.9 dead load + 1.3 wind load
(6) 0.9 dead load - 1.3 wind load

A P-Delta load combination of 1.2 DL + 0.5 LL is typically conservative when considering P-Delta
effect due to the overall sway of a structure. Combinations (3) and (4) will accurately capture this
effect, while (5) and (6) should be conservative. Combinations (1) and (2) have no lateral load,
therefore P-Delta effect should not be of concern. Please notice this is a non-linear static case and
should be performed only after the model runs without any numerical issues for simple linear cases
and results of basic variables such as deformations are within realistic or expected values.

P- effect
ETABS may account for P- effect, which is associated with local deformation relative to the chord
between member ends. We do not recommend implementing this method because it will significantly
increase computational time without providing the benefit of useful information. Instead, P- may be
captured through either of the following methods:
1. Apply design factors, which ETABS post-processing assumes to be done. These factors are
therefore included in design, when applicable.
2. Divide members into segments (at least two per column), then run each load case separately with
a different P-Delta load combination for each.

Notes
ETABS uses the same stiffness for all static load cases, response-spectrum analysis, and time-
history analysis.

Ritz and Eigen vectors

An overview of Ritz and Eigen vectors, taken from the CSI Analysis Reference Manual (Modal
Analysis > Overview, page 323), is given as follows:

Eigenvector analysis determines the undamped free-vibration mode shapes and frequencies of the
system. These natural modes provide an excellent insight into the behavior of the structure.

Ritz-vector analysis seeks to find modes that are excited by a particular loading. Ritz vectors can
provide a better basis than do Eigenvectors when used for response-spectrum or time-
history analyses that are based on modal superposition.

The user should determine the type of modes which are the most appropriate.

Eigenvectors
Eigen modes are most suitable for determining response from horizontal ground acceleration,
though a missing-mass (residual-mass) mode may need to be included to account for missing high-
frequency effects. Mass participation is a common measure for determining whether or not there are
enough modes, though it does not provide information about localized response.
Eigen analysis is useful for checking behavior and locating problems within the model. Another
benefit is that natural frequencies indicate when resonance should be expected under different
loading conditions. Users may control the convergence tolerance. Orthogonality is strictly maintained
to within the accuracy of the machine (15 decimal digits). Sturm sequence checks are performed
and reported to avoid missing Eigen vectors when using shifts. Internal accuracy checks are
performed and used to automatically control the solution. Ill-conditioned systems are detected and
reported, then still produce Eigen vectors which may be used to trace the source of the modeling
problem.

Ritz vectors
Load-dependent Ritz vectors are most suitable for analyses involving vertical ground acceleration,
localized machine vibration, and the nonlinear FNA method. Ritz vectors are also efficient and widely
used for dynamic analyses involving horizontal ground motion. Their benefit here is that, for the
same number of modes, Ritz vectors provide a better participation factor, which enables the analysis
to run faster, with the same level of accuracy.
 Further, missing-mass modes are automatically included, there is no need to determine whether or
not there are enough modes, and when determining convergence of localized response with respect
to the number of modes, Ritz vectors converge much faster and more uniformly than do Eigen
vectors. Ritz vectors are not subject to convergence questions, though strict orthogonality of vectors
is maintained, similar to Eigen vectors.
Sources of documentation on Load-dependent Ritz vectors include:

Structural-analysis textbooks (Wilson, 2004)

Finite-element textbooks (Cook et al., 2001)

Structural-dynamics textbooks (Chopra, 2000)

Tips
Both Eigen and Ritz modes may be calculated simultaneously, in the same model, and in the same
analysis run, such that their behavior may be compared.

Sources of flexibility available during calculation of Eigen and Ritz modes include:

Consideration of P-Delta and other nonlinear effects

Modes at different stages of construction
Frequency shifts for specialized loading