Excessive Deflection Countermeasures in SAFE

Excessive Deflection Counter Measures of Conventional
Slabs in SAFE
Posted on October 31, 2018
Excessive deflection in what will be discussed in this article is the deflection in excess of the
threshold deflection as prescribed by governing codes or local authorities.
As mentioned in my previous article, strength requirement is one thing to address and so is

deflection. It doesn’t always follow that once strength requirements are met, the deflection
criteria is already settled.
Before we resort to the ultimate option of altering the geometry, the framing or proposing a pre-
camber, we should be able to exhaust all probable mathematical solutions first using SAFE,
which will be discussed as you read on. But prior to that let us first have a quick discussion of
the basics of instantaneous and long-term deflection. (You can refer to chapter 9 of Concrete
Structures Stresses and Deformation 3rd Ed. by A Ghali, R Favre, and M Eldbadry for more
detailed explanations.)
1. Slab deflection is a function of stiffness. The stiffer the slab, the harder it is to deform as per
Newton’s good old pal Hooke in what is known as Hooke’s Law. (Historical trivia: there was an
enmity between the two.) This stiffness is the interaction of tension and compression within the
slab section during bending.
2. In Figure 1, tensile cracks on the underside are developed due to the applied loading. This is
because the modulus of rupture or the cracking modulus is exceeded. (Equation 9-10, Clause
9.5.2.3 of ACI 318M-11)
By yours truly.
3. In order to counter this, we can provide additional bottom bars to stiffen the underside of the
slab which is under tensile stresses. And since the concrete already cracked under this condition,
the tensile stresses are now fully shouldered by the tensile reinforcement as shown in Figure 2.
By yours truly.
4. Over time under sustained loads, the deformation in the tensile steel is no longer elastic such
that it will no longer go back to its original form. With the steel already ‘relaxed’ due to it’s
sustained elongation, the equilibrating compressive force in the concrete and the compression
steel is also in it’s irreversible deformation with the concrete and steel under compression. And
since both are in equilibrium, both will retain its deformed configuration – a sagging one (Figure
3).
By yours truly
5. To counter this deformed condition, additional compressive bars can be introduced to balance
the long-term effects of the additional bottom bars provided. Instead of the concrete carrying
the excess compression from the provided initial compression steel, the additional top bar
will help. In this state, the tensile steel no longer elongates that much. Likewise, the
compressive strain in the concrete is also limited (Figure 4).
By yours truly.
6. With these, we can conclude that providing additional bottom bars doesn’t always help in the
mitigation of long-term deflections because on long term, it will only aggravate the concrete and
steel under compression. Although with relatively small deflections, providing additional bottom
bars is sufficient.
7. With larger deflections however, additional compression bars may be necessary.
With that settled, we can now discuss how we can implement this excessive deflection counter
measures in SAFE. So if you encounter annoying deflection problems, try to implement the
following in a step-by-step fashion.
For conventional beam-slab (either one-way or two-way) floor system –
1. Usually the midspan of the middle strip deflects because the modelled beams are not stiff
enough. If beams are modelled as line element, convert it to shell. Procedure is to first select the
beam line element, go to Edit -> Edit Lines -> Convert Beams to Slab Areas. It will be converted
to a slab element with the dimensions of the previously defined beam line element.
Cropped by yours truly
2. If the above doesn’t work, provide the beam reinforcement by drawing the slab rebar (Draw ->
Draw Slab Rebar) Just be mindful of the vertical offset from datum (to differentiate top and
bottom bars), rebar material, extent (should be within the beam width) number of bars and bar
diameter. You can initially use the reinforcement that you will get based from strength design.
Tip: model the top bars properly in accordance to proper detailing i.e. top bars extending a third
of the span length beyond supports. This almost always do the trick.
Slab
Rebar of Beam
3. If there is still a deflection problem along the beam which is usually at midspan, draw the slab
rebar of the slab’s typical mesh. Never mind first the additional slab reinforcement at support
and midspan. This should stiffen the flange and help in the deflection control.
4. If the deflection along the beam still does not work, increase the provided reinforcement. Be
mindful that you don’t exceed the maximum reinforcement allowed for beams for ductility
purposes.
5. Assuming that the deflection along the beam length is already within the limits and we still have
a problem at slab midspan, model the additional bars required at midspan based on to strength
requirements. Sometimes, top bars perpendicular to the beams also help. Tip: maximum bar
diameter should be around 20-25mm. Or as stated previously, you can provide additional
compression bars to counter the deflection.
Now if you’re having some deflection problems for your flat slab system with drop panels –
1. Model the top bars at the drops based from strength requirements. Make sure that you provide
the correct length as if you’re directly implementing rebar installation from the drawings. This
usually does the trick.
Slab rebar on top of drop panel.
2. If providing top bars doesn’t work, draw the main mesh of the slab. Make sure that the main
mesh extends beyond the supports to allow for development of flexural bars (I discussed this in
my previous post.)Slab rebar on top of drop panel.
3. Model the required bars at midspan based from strength. Check the resulting deflections.
4. If the provided strength bars don’t work, increase as necessary for deflections. Again, you may
balance the required bottom bars by providing additional top bars. Don’t forget not to exceed
the maximum allowable reinforcement.
In both floor systems, following proper detailing should cover your deflection problems in
SAFE. And if these don’t work, you may want to review your loadings and the parameters used.
And say those parameters are consistent with the basis of design document and deflection is still
a problem, the final solution would be thickening the slab, providing a pre-camber or providing
additional supports of any sort that would be acceptable to all members of the design team.
Let me know if you have questions.
ありがとうございます!
Tips in Proportioning The Geometry and Reinforcement of

Conventional Slabs
Slab design may not be that ‘challenging’ to some compared to designing walls and columns and
the parts of the lateral force resisting systems (LFRS). Granting that such is the case, none can
discount the fact that slab design remains one of the major items that need to be done
nonetheless. In fact, slabs have the lion’s share in terms of the structural cost of a building.
To satisfy both the client (cost-wise) and good engineering judgement, the engineer should have
good proportioning skills of the slab thickness and the reinforcement.
By the way, it’s one thing to design it using software but it’s another thing to proportion them
such that it has just the right thickness and just the right amount of reinforcement. Remember, we
should have a picture of the client with a smile that extends to both ears and his two thumbs up!
So how do you do this? Here are some practical guidelines and general considerations:
1. Limit maximum bar diameter in the slab. It is quite common to see 20-25mm diameter bars at
supports especially on drop panels. 20mm bar diameters (25mm on extreme cases) is
acceptable on a FEW locations at midspan of column and middle strips. However, if you’re
seeing extra 20s and 25s on typical spans, then something is wrong. You need to thicken the
slab.
2. Where possible, aim to have only minimum reinforcement on typical spans. Minimum meaning
the typical reo provided.
3. Obey the reo rates. Reo (reinforcement) rate is the total weight of reinforcement within a
specified volume of concrete, expressed in kilograms per cubic meter of concrete or kgs/cu.m.
Under typical loading, the reo rate for slabs is usually 120 kgs/cu.m. If your rate is less than or
equal to that, then you’re hitting your target right. This rate also shoots up depending on the
occupancy. We may have MEP rooms and water tank somewhere, etc. Note that there are no
established standards (as far as I know) on reo rates. It varies depending on the owner or
developer on what they want to achieve.
4. Most of the time, deflection governs the design over strength requirements. The two checks
mentioned are on different limit states by the way. Deflection is a serviceability check and
strength obviously is ultimate. So if you’re checking the slab reinforcement, you can actually tell
that the provided reinforcement is for deflection. How? Experience will. Design a slab and take
note of your observations and come back and re-read this post.
5. Larger deflections are more common in the end spans. Compared with the internal span of a
continuous strip with a typical grid, the sagging moment (positive bending moment at midspan)
at the end spans is usually 20% greater than the sagging moment at the internal span. So greater
deflections and flexural requirements are expected at end spans.
6. With reference to item 5 above, it is also normal that the end spans have a thicker slab than
internal spans.
7. To such problematic areas where the reo layout is already a mess (when additional layers are
required) what is usually done is to provide a higher mesh. Say you need to provide T16-200
both ways, top and bottom instead of T12-200.
8. When you need to provide a thickening internally, be sure to extend it to the extremities of the
affected drop panels in the perimeter as shown below. The reason is to provide adequate space
for the flexural reinforcement’s development length. This is to make sure that the bending
moment can safely crossover from the support provided by the columns to the surrounding
slab.
Don’t thicken it
this way. Yours truly.
That’s more like it.
Still by yours truly.
Remember, the design should be efficient engineering-wise and cost-wise.
Hope you learned something new today. Let me know if you have queries, comments or add-ins.
Cheers mates!
Interpreting The Modal Mass Participating Ratios Table
From ETABS
I have not been modelling extensively in ETABS this recently so this query from a former 後輩 (
こうはい) had my technical engine humming once more.
She sent me the table below of the modal participating mass ratios extracted from ETABS and
asked what’s wrong with her model. Now let’s elaborate what’s wrong, the seemingly wrong and
the nothing wrong. (For clarity, you can download the image here.)
#1 – Probably nothing wrong here but a lot of old timers like me would say that the first mode
torsion is out of place. Ideally, the first two modes should be translation. Torsion should come
last.
#2 – The second mode is the translational vibration of the structure along X. Why X? The
maximum percentage along the UX column 73.03%, is directed along X hence the period along
X should be the period at mode 2 which is 0.885 sec. Notice also that it’s corresponding UY is
almost 0 which means model rotation or application of an angle to the spectral forces is not
required.
#3 – The third mode is the translational vibration of the structure along Y. You can follow the
same logic as specified on #2. Period along Y = 0.756 sec. Compared to 0.0001 UX, we can
assume that it is predominantly directed along Y.
#4 – Why did I highlight this? UBC 1631.5.2 states that 90% of the mass participation should be
reached. In the table above, neither UX nor UY achieved this. So more modes are required to
reach it? It’s either yes or no. Yes because you need to add more modes until you reach 90%. No
because as you have observed, the sum is fixed from mode 3 which should tell you that
something’s fishy and incorrect.
#5 – The same reason why mass participations did not reach 90% is because there is no mass
added, it’s zero. This should raise a red flag now because there is nothing right or normal about it
(read: something’s wrong with the model!)
There you have it. If it’s your first time to see this table or you’re not yet able to tell something
about your ETABS model just by looking at this, don’t worry. You just have to do this very often
and have a senior engineer who can assist you so that you’ll grow your mental structural muscle.
By the way, this is one of the sensibility checks in ETABS involving dynamic analysis, hence
this is something fundamental that you must commit to heart and memory.
Cheers!
Huge Stuff re Architectural & MEPF That We Need to Put

Our Fingers On
Posted on August 25, 2018
Howdy everyone?!
I’ve been digging for quite sometime now for something to share with you until I realized that
I’ve been looking far beyond my nose. So here goes nothing…
Since structural engineering is but one of the team which collaborates to produce a structurally
sound, functional, and elegant structure, it pays to know where we fit in the big picture. It’s like
knowing the battle ground enough to know the terrain and what we’re up against. Read: they
affect us and we affect them. With that said, we’re going to be more bad ass structural designers
if we can have a comfortable amount of leeway and confidence to account for the yet
unaccounted for including the dreaded ‘oops’ moments.
This knowing of the battle ground by the way does not imply leaving our beloved structural
design discipline and majoring everything while mastering none. いいえ. We’re not going out of
our comfort zone, rather, we are expanding it.
Ok, you’ve reached the end of the editorial, thank you for bearing with it.
photo from cartoonstock.com
In a project, there are stuffs that we need to ask the architects and MEP guys if they are not
directly given to us. They will not tell us anything related to what they’re doing that might have
an effect to us, with the exception perhaps of experienced MEP coordinators. So what are these
often unaccounted for stuff that we need to consider now and how do they affect us?
xxx
Suspended chilled water pipes in the chiller room. I would presume that the chiller room
chills the water supply and then pumps it out for distribution.
snapshot form Navisworks. by yours truly
Now why does this concern us? Because the chilled water pipes are suspended from the slab
above!
Normally we only provide up to 0.35 kPa for the suspended services but definitely these chilled
water pipes (aside from the bulk weight of steel pipes including fittings etc, do note that these
600, 900, and 1200mm diameter pipes are full of water) are way way more than half a kilo
Pascal. In one of our projects, we provided an additional 3.0 kPa to account for these water-
filled, suspended chilled water pipes.
These would have been no issue if we can suspend them via a support system that’s directly
connected to the columns instead of having them suspended directly in the slab above. But
according to my MEP chums, you can’t usually do that given the tight space as evident in the
image below.
So this needs to be included in the slab design for both strength and deflection criteria. Period.
End of argument.
xxx
Cooling towers. Where there are chiller rooms and chiller pipes, there’s gotta be a cooling tower
somewhere where, they, umm cool the water(? Better ask a mechanical guy for a more definite
and correct answer).
Per unit, these cooling towers weigh up to about 50 metric tons, so if you’ve only provided 7.5
kPa or even up to 10.0 kPa load, you’re still 3-4.0 kPa short. They’re quite massive so you
wouldn’t want to miss them.
xxx
Water tanks located in the roof. Ideally, water tanks should stay in the basement and supported
on soil. But there are instances like in one of our projects where the water tanks are located on
the top floor. So say you have a tank containing 2.50m high water, you should have 25 kPa of
load. So regardless of what floor, if these are supported on a suspended (not on soil) medium,
there will be a huge impact below.
xxx
Suspended busbars/busducts. Go and ask an electrical guy if you want to know more about this
buswhat.
All I know is that they’re suspended and that they weigh about 104 kgs per meter. So like the
snapshot below, there are 7-5000A busducts so that means we have 728 kgs hanging load per
meter or 7.14 kNs per meter. Say you have a tributary width of 9.0 meters, you’re going to have
to consider 0.80 kPa of suspended services.
xxx
Roof buildups. Typical in the buildings in the middle east where we have water proofing
membrane on top of the structural slab. On top of which is insulation and on top is screed.
The combined weight of the water proofing membrane and the insulation per square area isn’t
going to be much unlike the screed on top. Why the need for screed? So that rainwater will flow
with gravity and the screed is your means of creating a water way with a series of high points
converging to the lowest points where you usually put your rainwater pipe.
snapshot form an architectural plan. by yours truly
Now why did I put this in the list? It’s because it weighs much like concrete. Like the image
below, usually the lowest point is 100mm and the highest is 200mm, maybe more depending on
the slope. At this point, you should be able to determine at least the average screed thickness, or
where agreed, the highest and lowest point so that you can use your engineering judgement
accordingly.
xxx
Basement levels in the transformer room. Aside from the load, which is usually assigned with
10.0 kPa live, the whole floor level if it is suspended needs to go down to a level to be
coordinated with MEP for the electrical cables and pipes for power supply. These dictate the slab
levels, which will trickle down to the foundation.
taken from the internet.

credit goes to whoever owns this one
xxx
The pit within the pits. For escalator and elevator pits you can be sure that there will always be
sump pits below.
snapshot form Navisworks. by yours truly. can you spot the sump pit?
This is a variable to be considered when determining the required depth of excavation especially
when you don’t want those pits eating a part of the foundation
xxx
And that’s not all.
By all means, this is not the end of a definitely longer list, and the next entries may come from a
different project so I may add a few stuff once in a while.
And remember, we don’t need to go back to university to study mechanical, electrical, plumbing,
and fire pro. But knowing how these affect us can sure help us make more innovative and
practical structural engineering decisions.
Now that’s what I call a bad ass structural design engineer.

Did you know that… Strength Reduction Factor Adjusts
depending on the strain of the extreme tensile steel?
Posted on July 11, 2018
Updating the new, young, and unaware structural design engineers one code and concept at a
time.
How old am I? I’ll give you an idea: we had been the last batch way back university days that
used an older version of ACI that doesn’t interpolate the strength reduction factor depending on
the strain at the extreme bar/s in tension. (Feels like it was a dang long time ago!)
Just because it’s bending, the old code automatically sets the strength reduction factor to 0.90.
It’s not the case anymore. Before, what limits your flexural strength is the rho max and the
reducing effective depth d as the flexural bars increase.
The recent codes however, take into account the strain of the extreme bar/s in tension and it
doesn’t matter if the member is in pure bending or a combination of axial and bending.
Cropped from ACI 318M-11
The figure above, R.9.3.2 should be able to explain this in detail. Strains of below and equal to
0.002 will have a reduction factor of 0.65. Strains of 0.005 and beyond will have a reduction
factor of 0.90. Strains in between will be linearly interpolated. Now an example by hand was
done below for a member in pure bending.
Hand calculations by yours truly
For emphasis, this doesn’t only apply to members primarily in bending but is also applicable to
members in combined axial and flexure. This is also applied in one of my posts on creating your
own column interaction diagram.
Did You Know That… You can go lower than the minimum
required flexural reinforcement?
time.
This applies if the reinforcement provided is not driven by crackwidth limits and thermal
requirements.
The minimum steel ratios of 1.4/fy and √fc’/(4*fy) of 10.5.1 of ACI318M-11 doesn’t seem much
if you’re designing thin slabs ranging from 100mm to 300mm. But if you’re talking about a
meter or more of thickness and you’re trying to get the reo rate down, the minimum
reinforcement provided might solicit some unwanted comments such as “…dang man, that’s one
helluva bars!” This is exactly the same reason why the ACI committee provided an exception
which you can read why in the commentary on clause R10.5.3. More of that exception on my
succeeding discussions below.
Say you have a meter and a half thick bending member which is not exposed to earth nor to any
deleterious compounds, and by chance have a very low flexural utilization ratio which is way
below the minimum As as stipulated in clause 10.5.1. The minimum steel ratio will give us
approximately T25-100 of steel which is equivalent to 2705 kN-m per lineal meter of bending
capacity.
calcs by yours truly
But what if the demand moment is half or even less of the minimum capacity and you’re not
constrained by thermal and crackwidth requirements? It’s a good thing that the code, on clause
10.5.3 allows us to go lower than the said minimum if the provided reo is greater than a third of
what is required. So for the demand bending moment equal to half of the minimum, the required
reo is 2369 sqmm per meter. Multiplying it by 4/3 the reinforcement is now 3159 sqmm per
meter which is equivalent to T25-150. In doing so, we can now supersede the requirements of
clause 10.5.1.
continuation
Now T25-100 can go down to T25-150. If that aint a significant reduction then I don’t know
what is.
Did You Know That… Dynamic vs Static Base Shear

Balancing is Different in ASCE from UBC97?
Posted on June 29, 2018
time.
If you’ve read my previous post regarding balancing seismic and dynamic base shear that was
seismic base shear balancing considering UBC97 where static equals dynamic or dynamic should
not be less than a certain percentage of the static base shear depending on the structure
regularity. And while the use of UBC97 is still prevalent, ASCE is already gaining popularity
and not withstanding the fact that ASCE will eventually supersede the older UBC 97. Both codes
still have a lot of similarities in their provisions but one provision that is worth noting is on how
to balance static and dynamic base shears.
Here’s how we do the balancing, ASCE style.

cropped from ASCE 7-10
Let’s start by establishing the minimum dynamic base shear scale factor. Note that this scale
factor is a calculation of the percentage of g, which is the gravitational acceleration constant and
the percentage of which is given in 12.9.2 which is the ratio of Ie/R, Ie being the importance
factor and R as the response modification coefficient. So initially, our scale factor for the
dynamic base shear on one direction is g*I/R (that is if you have different R values on your
principal axes).
Now that we’ve established the minimum, let’s now proceed with the comparison:
If Initial Vt < V
cropped from ASCE 7-10
The ratio of the initial dynamic base shear over the static base shear need not be unity. In fact,
12.9.4.1 states that Vt need not exceed 85% of V disregarding structural irregularities which are
present in UBC 97.
Now what if the initial dynamic base shear is greater than the static, are we going to scale it
down? Truth is, we won’t be able to find any clause prohibiting us from doing so. But that’s the
reason why the minimum had been established. So no you cant scale down the already minimum
dynamic base shear.
We’re clear are we? Now to summarize:
Initial Scale Factor = g*Ie/R
If initial Vt < V; Final scale factor = Initial Scale Factor * 0.85*V/Vt If initial Vt > V
No further scaling is required

Setting Correct Expectations on LFRS Involving Transfers
Gravity dictates that what’s up must go down. The same can be said of lateral loads be it seismic
or wind: summation of applied lateral load equals the lateral base reactions.
In order for the two statements to become true, gravity and lateral loads must follow a load path
towards their final destination. And things like how the hell did some forces here disappear and
magically appeared somewhere else is our main objective to determine and understand.
For gravity loads, ideally, the load from above should follow a single linear concentric path
going down. For lateral loads, ideally, the shear that the wall carries should have some vertical
concentric path to the foundation below. But if that’s not the case, the load gets carried and
transferred elsewhere hence the term discontinuity.
And the efficiency of the discontinuous load path which is a detour from what is usually intended
is what overstrength requirement is all about.
I thought it was that easy but dang was I wrong. Turns out, it’s more than just multiplying the
seismic loads with 2.8 or any Ω-factor for that matter. What is dang hard is to pinpoint how the
load transfers along that discontinuity which is complex and not very straight forward despite the
advancement of structural analysis programs such as ETABS.
Is it really that hard you say? Maybe it’s just me but you be the judge. For now let’s look at a
rather simple model and trace how the lateral load made it’s way down to the foundation even
with the discontinuity. Only seismic lateral load (no eccentricities) on the building’s strong axis
is applied for simplicity and analyzed such that both edges with walls and transfer columns have
equal take on the story shear.
by yours truly
In the figure above, what connects the continuous and discontinuous walls is a slab with no
beams.
by yours truly
The figure shows the shear diagrams of the frame and wall element. Total base shear computed
is 1840kN. Taking a half of which, we get 920kN. At the level of the wall on top of 2 transfer
columns, the said wall takes it’s share of the seismic story shear. Below it where there were
transfer columns, they can no longer take a significant share of the story shear because the
columns will never be as stiff as the wall above (hence the term discontinuity). And it’s
supposedly share of the story shear, as structural analysis dictates will be absorbed by other walls
more capable of taking the extra shear. In this case, only the single wall at the bottom level takes
the total shear on one panel (908 kN ≈ 920 kN).
But what is happening to the transfer columns?

by yours truly
No significant bending moment is transferred to the transfer columns which proves the rule of
stiffness.
still by yours truly
Axially, the bending moment from the discontinuous wall translated to a push-pull action on the
transfer columns. The bars needed to resist the action of which should be properly detailed so
that the continuity of bars going from the column to the wall and bars from the wall into the
columns will be seamless.
Now my favorite part, the shear transfer. The 218 kN shear carried by the discontinuous wall
cannot and did not transfer to the columns. And how will this shear reach it’s final destination if
not in the columns?
In this particular example, the slab bridging the two walls is going to take over (in which, when
translated to an actual project should be adequate to carry the forces resulting from the
discontinuity) by means of compression-tension action. The principal forces are shown at
topmost and next level, respectively. Notice that the tributary width transferring shear forces via
compression from one wall to the other varies and cannot be readily determined. Finally, we
have the F22 contour which is parallel to the global Y axis showing the concentration of
compressive forces on the slab in between the walls.
Is this some sort of unnecessary overthinking? It’s both yes and no but the thing is we need to
have it covered if we want a robust design.
And if you still think this topic is very straight forward and can be readily identified without
thorough analysis, then just like myself previously you’re dead wrong. Remember that what I
presented is but a simple example compared to the projects we have encountered or will still be
encountering in the future.
Now going back to the code provision for overstrength, where are we going to apply the Ω-
factor?
For argument’s sake I will apply the Ω-factor to the transfer columns to account for the push-pull
action. In that way, I can account for the possible surge of tension compression forces in the
columns. Bending-wise? I don’t think it would affect the flexural capacity of the columns even if
we increase the overstrength factor to 5.
Other mind-boggling questions would be:
1. For shear, am I going to bring down the shear from the discontinuous walls to the columns
pursuant to 1630.8.2.1 of UBC97 and 12.3.3.3 of ASCE 7-10?
2. For the slab carrying the shear forces via compression, how am I going to detail it let alone
analyze the load path?
3. Should the exception 1 of 1630.8.2.1 of UBC97 have a continuation of “… And Em should not be
less than the force that is transferred to the element by the lateral force resisting system.”
I am willing to further learn this concept.
Rotating Spectral Axes

(Before anything else, I would like to acknowledge our design manager Dale who unselfishly
shared this to everyone and some of my colleagues who accommodated my queries so that I can
understand the concept enough for me to execute this in ETABS and finally write this here for all
of you.)
No I’m not referring to any ancient magical weapon of any sort.

Going through bits and pieces of dynamic analysis, the natural frequency is related to the lumped
mass per floor and the stiffness of the system with respect to translation in both horizontal
directions.
If you can kindly read dynamic analysis textbooks because I’m no longer familiar with those
(although I am thinking of refreshing myself with those concepts once more. Something to add to
my to do list.) for an in-depth understanding of which then please do so.
But what is the significance for us in rotating the spectral axes? Remember that we need to
balance the static base shear to the dynamic base shear, and that the period and the corresponding
base shear on a particular angle must match. So if you’re using the dynamic load case and you
don’t correct the angle, chances are you’re pumping incorrect forces to your building.
With the significance established, let me ram down our throats some basic concepts so that we
can fully grasp this spectral axes rotation. Ready?
1. Given the mass and the stiffness, the building will vibrate at some point where the mass and the
stiffness will tell it to vibrate. More like the building has a behavior of its own to which we have
really no choice but to let math do its course.
2. The X-Y orientation to which we oriented our building MAY NOT be the exact direction that the
building will vibrate. So don’t trouble yourself trying to compel it like making a canine do its
tricks because it has a mind of its own.
3. Static base shear will not dictate this direction of vibration because like the equation for base
shear in UBC 97, building period T is based on the building height and the parameter Ct whereas
the exact period is based on its dynamic properties.
4. For a building with regular framing, we can expect that the first two mode of vibrations are
translations (meaning it is either will sway first along X and then sway to Y direction for the
second sway and the third is the torsion or twisting mode. But then again this is not absolute
ok? I tell you this is only for relatively regular buildings)
5. Don’t forget to define the mass source, which is the mass that it will lump and will be used for
the dynamic analysis.
With item 1 in mind, we can generate the response spectrum analysis through ETABS. Let’s try
to analyze the modal mass participation table below of a sample model and see what the printed
digits mean.
The modal mass participating ratios table
Row 1 indicates the information about the first mode of vibration which, incidentally is the
vibration corresponding to the X direction (this does not coincide with the global X axis; you
will see later why). How’s that? The largest participating mass ratio along UX (4th column)
which is 0.609 occurs on the first mode. Hence, it earns the title of primary mode of vibration of
translation along X.
Row 3 shows the translation corresponding to the Y direction (again, this does not coincide with
the global Y axis). How’s that? The largest participating mass ratio along UY (5th column) which
is 0.4619 occurs on the third mode so it earns the title of third mode of vibration of translation
along Y.
Why skip the second mode? This doesn’t have anything to do with the spectral axes but it is
worth mentioning that even though the mass participations UX and UY are less than the first and
third mode or perhaps the other modes, if we go and have a look at column 12 which is RZ, we
can see that it has the highest ratio. RZ corresponds to the torsion.
So if we summarize the dynamic behavior of the building we can conclude that:
• The first mode is translation along X

• The second mode is torsion
• The third mode is translation along Y
I’ve read somewhere, sorry but I can’t remember where, that the ideal building behavior is first
two modes should be translation and that torsion should come after that. If it was in a rather
different order, then you might have some problems, not enough to say that the building is
unstable or unsafe, but to say that the building behaves rather odd.
Pardon me for digressing a bit.
Just remember that the period where the greatest percentage of mass is swayed is the
fundamental period of the structure in that particular direction.
So how do we know the angle on how much are we going to rotate our models?
There are two ways: first is by looking at the modal base reactions and the modal direction
factors. Let us first determine the angle using the first method and use the second for validating
our calculations.
Base Reactions
Deriving rotation angle via modal base reaction
Taking the first mode reactions, we can get a triangle and the angle that it makes with the
horizontal which is 18.26 degrees. This is the direction where 60.90% of the mass is engaged or
is being displaced in this direction. Similarly for the third mode, we can get the angle that it
makes with the vertical which is 5.36 degrees where 46.19% of the mass is engaged in that
particular direction.
Now let’s validate this using the modal direction factors. You can see the modal direction factors
which is part of the modal results by extracting the modal direction factors table. This is a bit
tricky so pay close attention to how they are derived.
Deriving rotation angle via modal direction factors
The UX and UY therein are not vector quantities but scalar. We can read it rather this way: for
mode 1, the building vibrates in a direction 18.36 degrees clockwise from the horizontal. Since it
is angled, the resolved forces and displacements on the global x and y axes both have their
effects on the direction of vibration. Again for mode 1, the effect of the forces along X is 0.827
along the direction of motion and add to this the contribution along Y which displaces it further
by 0.091, still on the said direction of motion. You got the picture? We then apply the same
principle to mode 3.
Whether we’re using the modal base reactions or the modal direction factors, we should arrive at
the same computed angle.
Now what’s this adjusted angle? Ideally, the principal directions of translations should be
orthogonal or normal to each other. But since this is not the case for modes 1 and 3, we need to
adjust it such that the angle between the said directions are 90 degrees. You can actually adjust it
closer to one derived axis but in the absence of related literature, what we do is we divide it
evenly to make them meet halfway and hence the adjusted angle of 11.79 degrees clockwise.
So we finally derived the angle, it’s now time to make sure that the dynamic base shear along
this corrected angle will not be less than 100% of the static base shear (that is if you’re not using
ASCE which allows you to bring it down to 85%). How do we do it? We just need check the
scale factors and the resulting spectral base reactions, resolve them vectorially to coincide with
the computed axes and there you go.
Balancing static and angled dynamic base shearSpecx load case data. Note the angle and scale factor
provided.Specy load case data. Note the angle and scale factor provided.
SpecY load case definition
SpecX load case definition
Another way of correcting the angle is by rotating the model in such a way that the correct
directions of primary translations will coincide with the global axes. This we have done also in
the past. So if this procedure will be followed, one must ensure that the modal base shears, the
modal direction factors and modal mass participations should coincide with the global axes. How
do we know that we already arrived on such conditions by looking at the digits mentioned
above? I’ll leave it to you to figure out how or you can hit the comment section if you’re not sure
how.
If you’re going to ask me the comparison of these two methodologies, then just like you I
haven’t messed with it that much yet. But whatever the result is, I believe that it’s something
worth digging for in the future.
Tips in Checking Service Crackwidths Using BS 8110-2:1985

Posted on May 27, 2018
When acted upon by service loads, a structural element especially those that are predominantly
resisting bending will experience cracking on the surface in tension when it’s modulus of rupture
is exceeded.
If you’re using BS and you have a project in the middle east, chances are you’re going to check
crackwidths.
Now depending on the exposure you’d get different allowable crackwidth limits. When a
structure is a typical water-retaining structure, you’re going to be limited to 0.20mm crack width.
The same limit applies for that part of foundation whose soffit is on soil – the reason perhaps is
because of the cracks that expose the reinforcement to corrosion. Then there’s a more stringent
limit of 0.10mm for areas susceptible to sulfate attacks (please ask Angus MacGyver to explain
wazza sulfate attack). And there’s the requirement for the typical, less environment-exposed
structural members such as internal suspended slabs and beams which should not exceed
0.30mm crack width. By experience though, once strength requirements are satisfied you were
also able to satisfy the 0.30mm limitation. Not convinced? Go figure!
But whatever the heck the limit is, BS tells us that there is only one equation for crackwidth
calculation.
Cropped from BS 8110-2:1985
But before we go to that part let’s first settle which load combination will be used. Crackwidth
check is a serviceability check which should now be obvious that we will use service loads. Long
story short, we should only use permanent loads such as dead and live loads. Wind and seismic
loads are transient loads and are by no means permanent unless it’s already Apocalypse A.D.
Limits, check. Load combination, check. Let’s now head for covers.
Actual cover is, well, the actual cover for the reinforcing steel. I am not power tripping with
words by the way. You need to be able to read through some vocabs because it comes with
different names such as steel cover and concrete cover and whatnot on different programs and
spreadsheets .
And there is the sacrificial cover or that cover where crackwidth will be checked. Now this needs
some illustration to be fully explained.
by yours truly
While we have actual concrete cover it does not necessarily mean that we need to satisfy
crackwidth limitations at the extreme fiber in tension. The extreme concrete fiber in tension can
crack as much as we allow it to, but at a distance of a couple of inches or so below the lowermost
tensile reinforcement (we use 40mm; others use 30mm and even 25mm) the crackwidth should
be controlled by the allowable limits. (In as much as I’d like to let you know where this came
from, I can’t. Not that I don’t want to but because I haven’t yet dug deep into the matter to know
which code specified this methodology. )The distance of the said controlled edge to the extreme
fiber in tension is the sacrificial cover.
If this is still confusing just remember our rule of thumb: the farther the distance of the tensile
reinforcement from the edge, the larger the crack.
Now if you’re already at the edge of your nerves ready to implode in trying to comprehend
concrete cover terminologies that vary from one spreadsheet to another software, you can just try
to remember this instead:
cropped from a spreadsheet
Dia is the bar diameter, s being the spacing, co as the cover from the longitudinal reinforcement
to the surface where crackwidth will be checked, and acr which can be established by the
theorem of our good old friend Pythagoras. Get it right and you can be sure to get the right
geometry for acr and the right crackwidth.
Now that’s much easier to remember (right??) All you have to do is to exert your finger muscle
in a calculator to verify your inputs and you don’t even have to decode which cover means what
which is why I wrote this post in the first place.
Now let’s wrap this up by taking a look at the required inputs that have something to do with
crackwidth computation:
1. Ms – the service moment (be reminded that this is a serviceability requirement). But what if
you’re just taking a unit width? Better make sure that your Ms is in kiloNewton meters per
meter (kN-m/m)
2. d – effective depth from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of reinforcement
3. b – width b. If it’s a beam or a narrow pad footing that you’re checking, b is the total width; if it’s
just a portion of the a slab or footing or wall or whatever, it’s gotta be a meter
4. As – is the total flexural requirement. If the reinforcement is a function of the bar diameter and
spacing, it would be per unit width or in square mm per meter (mm^2/m)
5. S – bar spacing. It is the spacing of the extreme longitudinal bars parallel to bending. Now you
might get confused because of the manner you provided your As. But don’t be. Just remember
the above diagram for As. You’re checking the crack at the concrete section in tension using the
arrangement of the extreme tensile steel. So whatever bars you provided above it is irrelevant.
6. Dia – bar diameter for As. Again this has something to do with the bar arrangement of the
extreme tensile steel for the computation of acr. Now say you have extra bars whose diameter
is different with your provided mesh, what we do is we use the smaller diameter so that acr will
be larger and the resulting crackwidth is also conservatively larger.
7. And finally the cover co where even if it’s hard to distinguish because of its many aliases, it can
be verified by ensuring that acr is correct.
One last tip. Suppose you’re using the next layer of reinforcement to check the crackwidth for
both direction (either t2 or b2; smaller capacity and thus more conservative. And don’t forget
that you need to check crackwidths in the two orthogonal directions) don’t forget to include the
largest bar diameter of the bar below in the computation of acr. That is because we consider the
same plane were crackwidth will be checked for the two orthogonal directions. The illustration
below should explain it in detail.
Drawn by yours truly
– including this one.
That’s it this time. If you were able to read this far, thank you. I appreciate it. Feel free to drop
me a message in the comment section below if you have something to ask or to add.
How to Check Accidental Torsion in ETABS Using Static
Seismic Loads
I hope you would bear with this rather lengthy post.
I have received an email from a reader requesting for a discussion about the correct and proper
way of computing the torsional amplification factor Ax for response spectrum cases, how to do it
using ETABS’ outputs and how to get the computed value back to ETABS.
It took me quite a while to write this because the topics related to this such as rigid and non-rigid
diaphragms keep bouncing in my head. Much effort had been undertaken to gather my thoughts
regarding this so here it goes. In the meanwhile, let’s focus first to the torsion induced using
static seismic loads.
But before we continue I would like to remind everyone reading my posts that what you read are
based on my structural engineering experiences only. If you want a standard procedure or a
manual please check out the publications of ASCE and UBC among others, that tackle these
issues in far greater depth. And if you find anything related to our discussions in this blog that’s
different from what I’ve presented thus far, can I ask you to please share it with me so that I can
assess and correct my views accordingly? Thanks in advance.
Now let’s get down to business.
Credit goes to the

original owner of this gif
Ideally, we would not let our building twist too much or at least limit it such that it will be kept
to a minimum as much as possible. But as of now, you might have already gotten used to the
truth that we don’t have absolute control where we can put our verticals (walls and columns;
with the exception of extreme circumstances where lateral stability is ultra-critical) such that we
can effectively control this lateral twist. So it will always be dang near impossible for the center
of mass and center of rigidity to coincide.
And as such is why codes stipulate minimum requirements to account for this.
How does this torsion affect a building anyway?
V = V/A +/- Tr/J; T = V*e
As you can see, torsional stresses do not just come directly from applied loads (the expression V
divided by the area A). More often than not, it’s the twist that’s causing much of the damage.
The larger the eccentricity e which magnifies the torsional moment T, the larger the shear
stresses are especially in the buildings’ extremities (where r is at maximum).
And just in case you’re still wondering, amplifying this torsion should not change the total base
shear that our building is subjected into. However large this eccentricity is, we would always
arrive at the equation: summation of forces (either along X or Y) = 0.
By the way, the latest version of ETABS can give us the average and maximum displacements
per floor and per diaphragm assignment. But since I am not sure how ETABS exactly arrive at
such displacement values, what I’m going to share is the old school way of determining Ax.
Again, the essence of this torsion check is, if at all possible, there should be a minimum twist
when a building is subjected to seismic loads in one principal direction. But since this can never
be guaranteed, we are hereby obliged to amplify this torsion. It is important to note that codes
specify a minimum initial deviation of 5% from the center of mass, in addition to the actual
distance between the center of mass and the center of rigidity denoted by e, before we apply Ax
such that the resulting final eccentricity is
Total eccentricity = e ± Ax*0.05*L
Where L is the dimension of the structure perpendicular to the direction of the applied force
The maximum allowable value of Ax is 3.0 where it renders 0.15 when multiplied by the initial
eccentricity of 5% (for UBC97 refer to 1630.7; and for ASCE7-10, refer to 12.8.4.3).
Having said all that, the load combinations that must be used should be the following. Note that
for each seismic load case, a minimum of 5% eccentricity should be specified. P for EXP and
EYP denotes positive eccentricity and N denotes a negative eccentricity.
Load combinations for
seismic story shear along X. By yours truly.
Load combinations for
seismic story shear along Y. By yours truly.
You might be tempted to use orthogonal load combinations of 1+0.30 but of course it does not
make sense doing this because it would be like beating a dead horse. And needless to say that the
additional 0.30 earthquake load from the orthogonal direction would produce unnecessary
additional torsion when computing Ax (I know, I’ve said it anyway).
Now that we were finally able to define the related load combinations, we can now extract the
displacements and proceed with the computation of torsional amplification factor Ax. To
properly capture the torsional effects of which, let’s first assume that we have a rigid diaphragm
(more on rigid and non-rigid diaphragms on the succeeding posts).
sample model and snapshot by yours truly

cropped from ASCE7-10
For the story shear directed towards X, our control points where we are going to extract
displacements are points 11 and 13. The story shear directed towards Y, our control points are
points 13 and 2700. You can check this spreadsheet for the detailed calculation of the percentage
of accidental eccentricity per load combo.
For shear along X. by yours truly
For shear along Y. by yours truly
For the shear along X, we can see that no Ax exceeded unity, hence our amplified eccentricity
remains 5% since we cannot reduce this value further as stipulated in the code. For the shear
along Y however, with the load combination ULSECC12, the computed Ax is 1.37 and the
resulting amplified accidental eccentricity is 6.85%. Elsewhere, no Ax exceeded 3.0 so there is
no need for the accidental eccentricity to be at a maximum of 15%.
Note that we need to perform this computation per floor, and per diaphragm if one floor consists
of several diaphragms. If you’re in a hurry however, you can provide the maximum computed
eccentricity to all the diaphragms, that is if you’re ok with the overdesign. But since we’re
aiming for an efficient and cost-effective design, we need not exceed the permitted maximum
allowable.
It’s one thing to compute the eccentricity but how do we input this back to ETABS? In the
Seismic Load Pattern dialogue box, inside the Overwrite Eccentricities, we can find a dialogue
box where we can input the Story, the diaphragm label and the corresponding absolute length
which is a function of Ax multiplied by the 5% eccentricity. For our example, the eccentricity of
36m*5%*1.37 = ±2.466m should be provided for both EYP and EYN. You were able to follow,
right?
snapshot from ETABS
I just wish to make a few more reiterations: just in case you are tempted to think that this
accidental eccentricity is the total eccentricity, well, fact is it’s not. The point of application of a
seismic story shear is at the center of mass such that the accidental eccentricity applies relative to
this center of mass. And what some of us may not be aware of is that there is an eccentricity
coming from the difference of the center of mass and center of rigidity which is computed
internally in ETABS. So the total eccentricity is the inherent eccentricity e, plus/minus the
accidental one. You might want to refer to CSI’s knowledge base and SEAOC’s Seismic Design
Manual Volume 1 for much detailed examples.
Finally, let us relate seismic drift and accidental torsion.
Fact is, you have to first establish the torsional amplification factors before checking the drift.
You cannot just sit pretty relaxed and contented that your drift values are within the prescribed
limits while you’re still oblivious to the additional torsional moments that can be brought about
by Ax greater than 1. Now it depends whether you have a rigid diaphragm or (behaving like rigid
at least) before you can see its actual effects. Yes it’s that complicated.
So remember to first compute the torsional amplification factors before checking the drift!
Did You Know That… SRSS Orthogonal Direction

Combination Can Be Waived?
Posted on April 23, 2018
time.
If you’re having trouble making the design or drift work because of the SRSS seismic load
combination shown below, well good news is you can waive the said requirement.
SRSS = SquareRoot [SpecX^2 + SpecY^2]

What am I talking about? Let’s break it one by one.
When the code specifies seismic load E in a load combination, it seems that it is a very straight
forward E where you just substitute a singular value and voila, an ultimate load.
Trouble is, it’s not that simple because E may mean either of the following:
• Vertical component added/subtracted to the selfweight;

• The seismic load for accidental torsion;
• The seismic load for drift;
• The seismic load for drift waiving period limitations;
• For design in seismic zones D, E, and F;
• Overstrength for design of discontinuous LFRS; and
• For orthogonal seismic load consideration. Let’s focus on this one.
As per code provisions, a single direction of action be it X or Y is not enough hence it is

imperative that a certain percentage of earthquake loads at a certain direction needs to be added
to the earthquake load on its orthogonal counterpart. This increases torsion to the LFRS which it
must safely resist.
Section 1633.1 of UBC 97 states that two methods may be used to account for this:
1. The 1+0.30 rule; or the

2. SRSS method
The first method would require you to have 32 combinations (remember that we have positive
and negative eccentricities hence the 2 cases in one direction). Multiply these with the different
number of dead and live load combinations which they will be added to.
by yours truly
For the second method however, we only need to define an SRSS load combination or load case.
The effects of spectral seismic loads will be combined statistically.
Cropped by
yours truly…
… including this one
But why the need to waive the second method?
Compared with the 1+0.30, the SRSS method gives generally larger forces. Of course this may
not always be true locally and globally so I’ll leave it to you to confirm this. I’ve had some
projects before where there is a difference in the applied forces and the design using SRSS gives
an O/S but the 1+0.30 still has some allowance left.
This is indispensable and probably the last option when you can no longer amend the current
framing nor reduce the applied loads.
And what is my basis for saying that this can be waived? Read 12.5 Direction of Loading of
ASCE 7-10. You will not find any provisions for SRSS. If this was disregarded in the newer
code, then it might be because they found out that SRSS is way too conservative that it is very
uneconomical compared to a probably more realistic 1+0.30.
That ought to keep you covered.
Defining Nonlinear Load Cases in SAFE to Check Uplift

In Foundation
Before we get to define nonlinear load cases in SAFE, for the sake of those who don’t have any
idea on the difference of nonlinear and linear analysis, let me give you an equivalent political
example:
In a country ravaged by slavery, political unrest and drugs, you would expect more decadence
and decay that’s deeply ingrained as a result of its sustained and cumulative damage on its
victims which is the general populace.
The effect would be different if say we have peace and then invasion. And then peace again, and
then the political unrest. And then peace again and the drugs infestation. If we combine the
individual effects of which you won’t get the same screwed state of the people like the first one.
Now, before Zack de la Rocha comes screaming in the background let me rephrase the examples:
The last example is called the method of superposition where you combine the individual effects
of several loading conditions which all started from an underformed condition. In ETABS and
SAFE, if you don’t specify a nonlinear analysis, you will be defining by default a
superpositioning method which is called the linear analysis.
The first example however is the nonlinear case where you add a certain loading to an already-
deformed body, which has a different stiffness (taking into account the presence of cracks)
compared to an underformed condition. This is a more realistic approach to analysis which is
technically more correct than its linear counterpart.
After a long detour, let’s get back to our original topic.

Nonlinear analysis as defined is the accumulation of the results of a step-by-step analysis. For
example, we want to check the uplift (or the presence of which) in SAFE considering the load
combination 0.60 DL + 0.70 EQ which was stipulated in ASCE 7-10 (clause 2.4.1 equation 8).
First and foremost, we need to establish which loads precede what. In this case, it has to be the
dead load first before applying the lateral loads. Lateral loads cannot come first before the
gravity loads, right?
So we will define a nonlinear load case called 0.6DL-NL where NL stands for nonlinear. This is
the initial condition, i.e., from an unstressed state, which we will apply the dead loads. And what
comes after this condition will be the starting point of the succeeding loading condition. Just
don’t forget the scale factors and to allow uplift.
Continuing from the previous nonlinear dead load case, we define now the nonlinear seismic
load case. Again, please be mindful of the scale factor and to allow uplift.
In order to confirm that the results make sense after running the analysis, the bearing contour
should show zero values of the bearing pressures that were once in tension using the linear load
case/load combination.
And to add to the chaos, please keep in mind the following bits and pieces of my gleaned
realizations and conclusions:
1. A nonlinear load case involving spectral seismic loads is not possible in SAFE, hence only static
load cases can be used in nonlinear analysis.
2. The load combination with the highest tensile bearing pressure in linear analysis does not
ALWAYS produce the maximum equivalent compressive bearing stresses on the other end of the
footing. Hence, we cannot immediately conclude that that nonlinear load case will always
produce the greatest compressive stresses on the footings.
3. Having said that, we must trace one by one, out of the 100+ or so seismic and wind load
combinations which produces uplift. And again, it is another matter of finding the maximum
bearing pressure and finding the maximum ultimate load combination for design.
4. It is by far the best solution, if possible to totally eliminate if not significantly reduce to a
negligible amount the uplift in order not to go to this troublesome nonlinear analysis.
Now feel free to add to these if you have something else in mind. Just head to the leave a
reply section below.
What’s Wrong with a Soil Bearing Pressure in Tension?

A young lady structural designer that I was working with was once perplexed with this concept.
And what made it more blurred for her was when engineers from the other group doing a portion
adjacent to our area also encountered soil bearing in tension to which they tend to dismiss it like
it’s no big deal. This got her even more confused and it is about this predicament that she
consulted me.
Nope we can’t dismiss it, I told her and explained to her what you will read below in a moment. I
wish that she was finally convinced, and I do hope that she was able to put her doubts to rest.
Soil in Tens.. what?!
Ok, on a simplistic representation, it looks something like this:
The footing in figure (a) is subjected to gravity loads with a fair amount bending moment (you’ll
see what I mean about fair in a while) as evident in the trapezoidal bearing pressure. This is
assuming that the pad is infinitely rigid in bending such that the P/A +/- My/I is applicable. The
more we increase this bending moment however, one end of the footing will approach a
condition where there will be zero bearing pressure as shown in figure (b). Increasing this
bending moment further will have a portion of its end flying, that is it will no longer be in
contact with soil and hence figure (c) with a tensile soil bearing pressure.
But(!) the bearing pressure in figure (c) is erroneous. Why? Soil can only support loads that are
pressed into it and not the ones going away from it. Soil cannot pull back the footing down like a
hook is attached at the bottom to prevent it from imminent take off. Unlike piles where the
longitudinal reinforcement are embedded into the footing, we cannot assume the soil to take any
tensile stresses.
What do I do when I encounter a flying footing?
First, you can either do something about the geometry to totally avoid the tensile bearing
pressure or you can live with it and just take measures to account for the loss of bearing area due
to the footing losing contact with the soil.
And in addition to our case, the design manager told her that there can’t be no soil tension and to
try to run a non-linear analysis.
We tried to iterate options on modifying the geometry but we’re getting rather exaggerated
results like the mat foundation is too massive. And in compliance as well to the instructions of
the design manager, I told her to run a separate non-linear analysis.
Just to set the correct expectations however, I told her, that running a non-linear analysis cannot
and will not eliminate the tensile bearing pressure. It will only prove that a soil bearing in tension
phenomenon is indeed present.
What will the computer program do when running a non-linear analysis?
Considering the figures below:

Bearing: Linear vs Nonlinear
Shear: Linear vs Nonlinear
Bending Moment: Linear vs Nonlinear
The snapshots showed the differences in bearing pressure and resulting forces using linear
and nonlinear run. What nonlinear analysis will do is that it will iterate solutions such that the
resulting bearing pressure will have zero bearing pressure on portions of the footing not in
contact with the soil. Subsequently, the resulting shears and bending moments will also change,
hence, using the forces in the linear load combinations (with uplift) for design will be incorrect
and will render erroneous and under-designed footings.
And let’s say that the allowable bearing capacity is only 500 kPa. It can be seen that in the linear
run, the bearing pressure is only 407 kPa but in the nonlinear run, the actual bearing reaches
almost 890 kPa which is considered failed.
After proving the existence of uplift, what now?
Like I’ve said earlier, you can change the geometry until such time that there is no more soil
bearing in tension. In that way you can still use the defined load combinations, which are linear,
for design. This is in fact the more viable solution so that you won’t have to worry about the
error in load distribution when you have uplift.
Or you can opt to do the more troublesome way of defining nonlinear load combinations for
design. Take note that it is one thing to define nonlinear service load combinations to check the
bearing pressures so that it will yield zero in the event of an uplift. The painful part is you must
identify among the hundred or so service load combinations which causes uplift. And after
confirming which one, it is another matter of defining their ultimate counterpart and use it for
design (more on defining non-linear load combinations in SAFE in my succeeding posts.)
You get the picture? Yep it’s a pain in the ash alright.
And finally to answer the question in the above title, everything is wrong with a soil bearing
pressure in tension!
Did You Know That… ρmax (rhomax) Computation

Already Changed in ACI318-11?
time.
Either some are oblivious to it or because licensure examinations are not yet updated with the
latest code provision regarding the maximum allowable ratio of flexural reinforcement, it
definitely changed from the familiar
To that below which came from a clause in 10.3.5 of ACI318M-11 in which I will quote “For
nonprestressed flexural members and nonprestressed members with factored axial compressive
load less than 0.10f’cAg, εt at nominal strength shall not be less than 0.004″ which is now
So how did we arrive on that equation? Let me explain via the derivation below. By the way, if
you want proof that this was the former limitation of 75% of the reinforcement required on
balanced condition, you can read the commentary R10.3.5 which I snapped-shot below prior to
the derivation.
Snapshot from ACI318M-11. That ought to convince you!

Derived by yours truly.
You might want to have a closer look at the computation of β1 too. It sure changed a lot from the
editions way back a decade ago!
The commentary itself described the difference to be slightly more conservative. Not much
impact there to warrant a major design revision huh? But yeah nevertheless, we ought to keep
posted for all the updates of all the codes we’re using. After all, we need to be sure that we’re
quoting from recent design manuals when presenting our calculations.
Understanding M12 (Out-of-Plane Twisting Moments) In

Shell Analysis Outputs
Posted on March 28, 2018
(Again, credit goes to Dale and other fellow engineers who shared the concept of the unchartered
territory of twisting moments and in-plane shear in shell elements that sparked my curiosity and
inspired this writeup.)
Question:
In SAFE, is it ok to use the bending moments for design from a) the moment contours M11 and
M22, and b) the bending moments from the strip forces?
Answer:
I’d give it a resounding NO in a capital and bold font style. Why? Because the bending moments
from the moment contours and the strip forces do not account for the twisting moment, namely
the M12 or the Mxy as some may call it. This twisting moment is what Wood and Armer added
to the normal bending moments.
To illustrate, an infinitesimal element below is subjected into out-of-plane bending moments

which are the m11 and m22. Also in the figure is m12 which is the twisting moment that is
included in the computation of the final bending moment to be used for design.
The infinitesimal element (from CSI)
Notice how Mxy is added to bending moments in a particular direction. Wood-Armer Equations taken
here
Ok, so before you get drowsy and close this page, let me now illustrate the difference in
magnitudes of using the moment contour, the strip moment, and the strip moment used for
design:
The example below is an edge middle strip of 6.0m width. Let’s try to compare the bending
moments taken from a) moment contour or M22; b) strip moment that can be viewed when
showing the strip forces; and c) design moment that SAFE used to generate the required
reinforcement. The general idea is, wherever we get the bending moment, they should be the
same (it will make no sense if we get different results, right?) but let’s see if that’s really the
case.
Snapshot
by yours truly
In the moment contour above, we’re getting an average of +/- 100 kN-m/m of bending moment.
In the strip moment, we got 643.251 kN-m. Dividing it by 6.0m we get a bending moment of
107.21 kN-m/m
Last but not the least is the design moment used by SAFE. In the snapshot, the bending moment
at the bottom is around 713.416 kN-m so dividing it by 6, we get 118.90 kN-m/m of bending
moment.
Now there’s a difference. Not much difference you say? It’s because the sample model has a
simple and regular framing. Compare it to a more complex floor layout and you’ll see a stark
difference (go figure for yourself!).
So what happened to the design moment and why is it different from the first two means of
getting that flexure? Blame it on the Wood-Armer equations for combining the torsional
moments to the moments in the same orientation as the global X and Y axes.
Follow Up Question:
Is this twisting moment the resultant of the M11 and M22? What does this torsional moment
look like anyway?
First, no the twisting moment or the M12 is not the resultant of M11 and M22. Second, continue
reading below for you to know on how we interpret it. Again, credit goes to my fellows for
sharing it so that I can share it with you too.
Let’s get familiar with these principal moments, shall we?

Principal out-of-plane moments and their directions.
What we saw above are the principal moments and their respective directions (Mmax is the
longer arrow and the shorter one perpendicular to Mmax is the Mmin). And take note that the
principal moments are angled, such that they don’t necessarily coincide with the global X and Y
axes. But what are these principal moments anyway? We need to face again our archnemesis
way back strength of material days.
Mohr’s circle. It’s not my fault your day’s ruined because of this, ok?
The circumference represents the out of plane bending moments at different angles. This site
offers a nice animation of the envelope of normal and twisting moments on a finite element at
different angles. Going back to the above figure, Mmax and Mmin are the principal moments
which happen when the twisting moment M12 is zero. Conversely, the maximum twisting
moment occurs at point C, which is the average of the Mmax and Mmin. Note that M11, M22,
and M12 do not, and will never simultaneously reach their maximum values.
In a way, the effect of the twisting moment closely resembles that of the bending moment on the
familiar orthogonal axes of a slab. That, perhaps is the same reason why Wood and Armer
proposed to combine the normal bending and the twisting moments to produce a design moment
that is larger than the bending moment normal to an axis that does not coincide with its principal
moments.
Since most FEA softwares already include the twisting moment to derive the design flexural
reinforcement, I believe that aside from investigating the behavior of a floor plate, in SAFE:
1. it’s no use looking at the moment contours and the strip forces per se and using them to derive
the design reinforcement;
2. the m12 moment diagram in itself means nothing aside from the aforementioned behavior
evaluation;
3. the strip bending moment is only but a good estimate of the probable ultimate bending moment
that can be used for design;
4. you have to rely on the design strips in doing the averaging and inclusion of the twisting
moments for you
I’m not closing my mind though for other ideas, possibilities, and mathematical concepts that I
don’t know yet regarding my four deductions above. We’re in a scientific community anyway, so
unless proven wrong you might as well agree with me.
You don’t? I hope you’ll share your take on this in the comment section below. Thanks in
advance!
Treating Unbalanced Bending Moments at Columns and

Slabs-Without-Beams Interface
Who among you thinks flat slab design is boring? Anyone besides myself?
I thought so too myself before. But don’t worry though, you will change your mind after this and
hopefully you will be entertained like myself on this fundamental concept regarding moment
transfer between column and slab. And yes you were right when you read fundamental, so you
might want to overlearn this one.
Time to set that imagination again in motion.
Before, we just used pin supports to represent a column under the slab. So with this modelling
approach, we can be assured that the bending moment on the other side will be equal to the
bending moment on the opposite side. So this is as if we have a ball joint on the pin-supported
part of the slab and the bending moments are just passing through the slab with the support doing
nothing but to restrict the vertical displacement.
Like this one
But this type of model is incorrect. First, because there is no such thing as an unyielding support.
Second, the bending moments do not just pass through the slab to eventually balance itself. So
continuing the first argument, instead of a rigid support, in reality we have a finite spring type of
support provided by the column to resist the vertical displacement and the out-of-plane rotations
(remember that we are only dealing with gravity forces here, that is, we don’t take into account
the in-plane forces that the joint is subjected into). Not all of the bending moments in the slab
pass through the joint and get redistributed to the other side. Some of these unbalanced bending
moments get resisted by the columns thereby inducing rotation on the columns. This aint a
bridge where you have rollers as support on one end so the ball joint model is totally incorrect!
“Spring” represented by column
So now let us deal with these bending moments one by one and see what we’re up against:
1. Bending moments in the column. This should be properly captured using a 3D analysis
model like ETABS. The good news is, if we have regularly-shaped columns on top of another,
then this is almost always accounted for. Otherwise if you have, say a circular column below and
an L-type column above, then you might want to make sure that the bending moments above
can be sensibly passed to the column below.
2. Bending moments in the slab. If you are using SAFE or ROBOT or RAM Concept or any other
software capable of slab analysis, you always got this covered. Just a friendly reminder: the
critical section for bending is on the face of support and not on the joint where you provided a
stick model of the column!
3. The unbalanced bending moment. Even if you have a kilometer of tributary width of slab for
your column, only a portion of the slab is effective to transfer the unbalanced bending moment
to the column. Yes, we must make sure that the slab is capable of supporting such bending
moment before it can pass it to a stiffer column. You get the picture? This unbalanced moment
in the slab is NOT, and I repeat, IS NOT captured by SAFE (I’m not sure for the other software
out there). Hence, this is a must-do supplementary manual check.
What supplementary manual check am I referring to? for ACI318, this is under the provisions of
13.5.3.2 and for BS 8110, this is under 3.7.4.2 I will not dig into BS in my sample calculation
though.
screen-grabbed from ACI 318M-11
Now let’s break down the requirements of ACI318 13.5.3.2

The unbalanced bending moment is the bending moment in the column that can be derived in the
analysis. Note that for equilibrium, you will not really get a zero-unbalanced bending moment in
the column. We can have a negligible amount of bending moment but never a zero.
Only a percentage of the unbalanced bending moment will be resisted by the slab through
bending. This is given by the factor γf, where f denotes flexure. The remaining percentage of the
unbalanced bending moment will be converted as shear which is given by equation 11-37. So
don’t rejoice just yet that you only have a small percentage of the unbalanced moment resisted as
bending moment in the slab. Wait ‘till you see the punching shear calculations. Note also that the
parameters b1 and b2 in the computation for γf are the same nomenclatures in the
computation for punching shear
So the effective slab width to be considered to transfer this unbalanced bending moment is only
1.5 times the thickness of the slab or drop panel on each side of the column face.
The effective slab width

Let’s get to my favorite part which is the manual calculation. So in the attached handcalc, we
have a blade column supporting a relatively thin slab of 250mm. In the example, you can see that
the effective width is reduced due to the presence of an opening. The total reinforcement of 2
layers of T12-100 for the hogging moment (negative bending moment) may seem too much
when checking the design via SAFE but upon checking 13.5.3.2, we found out that the provided
reinforcement is insufficient. So the reinforcement derived by the slab bending moments at the
supports is not a guarantee that it can always adequately transfer the unbalanced bending
moment to the column. READ: this will always require a detailed check in order to be sure.
In case you missed that manual check, you can check it here.
Turns out, it seems that the set up where this check would be critical, is when you have, say
blade columns which can resist a relatively large bending moment in its strong axis; and a
relatively thin slab punctuated with openings. That’s just a personal assessment though.
Nonetheless, it will always take a detailed check to be sure.
Punching Shear With a Punch

Why punching shear and is it really THAT important?
One-way and two-way (punching) shear are inductile types of behavior unlike bending that is
capable of redistribution after cracking. Or putting it in another way, a failure in shear either one
way or punching in nature will almost always guarantee a change in size.
So never, ever neglect shear checks! Ok let’s get back to punching shear…
If only all punching shear stresses are caused by loads minus the effects of bending, the
calculation would have been easily carried out using load take down or by just getting the
column load brought about by the dead and live loads. But no this isn’t the case. It’s the effect of
the bending moments on a particular critical section that adds a considerable amount of punching
shear stress which is hard to grasp.
From BS 8110; Cropped
If it were only BS like the equations shown above, the additional punching shear brought about
by the unbalanced bending moment in the columns of a flat slab or flat plate would have been
chicken bit. But if you’re using ACI, punching shear checks would have that extra punch that
smacks you right in the face.
Cropped from ACI318-08
Cropped from ACI318-08 and PCA Notes to ACI 318-08
Now how does that compare with that from BS?!
Dang.
Since we are now design practitioners (or aspiring to be one) we now know that we can readily
refer to the PCA notes section of ACI318-08 which provides a very convenient tabulation of the
polar moments of inertia of the critical section depending on the location (internal, edge or
corner) and direction of bending set forth in Fig. 16-13.
However, if you are curious like me that you also want to know how in the world did they arrive
at such expressions, then you might want to have a look at my derivations by hand.
Thanks to a reference I found online, which is ADAPT’s technical notes in punching shear
calculations. Even if the polar moments of inertia were not explicitly elaborated, you can still
work out the familiar Ixx, Iyy, and the transfer formula. I am not going to provide an explanation
on how ADAPT arrived on such expressions of the polar moment of inertia of the critical section
though. Rather, I will start from the said general expressions and come up with the equations
from Fig. 16-13. I will maintain the nomenclature used by the code all throughout the derivation
process.
Bending Parallel to Edge Case A
Internal Column Case B
Bending Parallel to Edge Case C
Corner Column Case D
The ACI equations for the polar moments are intimidating when you look at them. But
understanding where they came from and watching them unfold from one daunting equation
after another gives you an added confidence and a deeper level of intimacy with the said
equations.
Well, that’s what it did to me. And the reason why I’m sharing this is because I know that you
also want to have that intimate type of comprehension of the said concept.
The Not-So-Orthodox Retaining Wall Design

Posted on February 8, 2018
During our tender years in the profession when using ETABS, SAFE, or STAAD was still
considered the 8th deadly sin, we might have been asked for quite a number of times to design a
retaining wall or a ramp or a combination of both (ramp supported by retaining walls). The
senior guys think you are not in the capacity yet to check the torsional amplification factor Ax so
every newbie guys like me back then are given retaining walls.
And because of the advent of computer programs such as TEDDS and spreadsheets, you might
have thought that retaining wall design is a menial task involving modelling a cantilevered wall
with linear varying loads and just that with the letters B.O.R.I.N.G printed on it.
Well, it depends on how you look at it. But in fact, you can actually learn something new from a
rather “menial” or “dull” task. Consider the following:
• Using Ko instead of Ka. Yep, instead of the active soil pressure Ka, you can use the in-situ or at
rest soil pressure Ko (by Jaky, 1948). It’s more conservative by the way. If, say you have an angle
of friction φ= 30 degrees you have an additional load allowance of approximately 17% over Ka.
That allowance ought to keep you covered for contingencies.
at rest or in situ soil pressure coefficient
• You get to practice deriving the applied loads. It’s nice to learn a software such as TEDDS. But
there will be times that you will need to derive the loads and analyze it in STAAD to get the
exact shear and bending moments – be it for strength design or service-level moments for crack
width check. Beefing it up with the basics is not a bonus – it is in fact the main thing, the
essential one, the main event.
• You finally get to use Kp. When did you get to use the passive pressure coefficient Kp? If you
have not been able to use it yet, then it’s time to free yourself from the mundane cantilevered
wall model and see instead a system of supports like the one shown below and use Kp.
This portion of the retaining wall and ramp is the scenario in one of the projects I was involved
in.
geometry by yours truly
Now, if we’re going to glean some wisdom in the sketch above:

• The hydrostatic pressure can be cancelled globally but it will have an effect locally, so keep it as
is.
• When the soil on the left side pushes the wall, a resisting passive pressure develops on the right.
Remember that Kp is the maximum allowable passive pressure that will be developed.
Depending on the amount of thrust that the active or at rest pressure develops, you may not
actually reach the full Kp value. Why is it? Equilibrium my friend. The push on the left = the
resisting push on the right.
• The ramp will experience axial compression, which needs to be accounted for.
• The wall will experience the maximum bending moment, not at the support below, but on the
location of the ramp. Surprised? I was too but numbers and bending moments don’t lie.
case in point. section view

case in point.
bending moments on partial elevation view
Yep, there’s actually more than meets the eye if you look at it intently than just see a fixed
bottom and/or free/propped top.
And just in case you’re getting me wrong, I am not saying that it’s wrong to consider the
conventional cantilevered wall model. What I’m saying is we should be on the lookout for other
possible scenarios depending on the actual situation.
Now, if you have some unique encounters on retaining walls and ramps that you want to share,
please feel free to share them via the comment section below. I’d love to hear (read) them too.
ETABS Limitations: Buckling Walls

Posted on February 2, 2018
Reality check:
In as much as we would like it to be, ETABS and other structural analysis and design software
cannot cover EVERYTHING we have in mind. And as such, it helps to be reminded that these
software are but tools and never a substitute for the critical mind of a structural engineer.
This is not to berate ETABS’ capabilities. We as a profession have been blessed with an
intelligence like ETABS such that we can avoid onerous and impossible calculations that the
software can perform with ease quickly and accurately. What I am trying to point out here is the
need for the structural engineer to think beyond how the software thinks because there are in fact
limitations of ETABS and any other software.
One example of it’s limitation is the unanticipated buckling of walls.
I can read your thoughts alright: “Whoa, hang in there. Buckling walls? Are you out of your
mind?” Tell you what though, yep, I am dang serious.
This can happen when you provide very thin walls, say with dimensions b/h = 0.20 to 0.10, with
an unsupported height of two storey or more. When you assign a pier label to a wall element and
click start design, it will never consider whether the wall is actually slender or not. This is alright
with laterally supported long walls and walls that are connected to other walls. But if you have a
situation as described below, then you might be missing something fundamental.
It happened to one of the projects I was involved with. The geometry below is but a
representation of the said project but of the same situation. Since we have a hard time making the
existing core wall work, we added some blade walls, some 150mm thick and the others 200mm
to hopefully relieve the highly stressed core wall. I don’t think they’re going to be of help that
much but we provided them anyway (after all something is better than nothing!)
We have a high ceiling, up to 4 storeys high from ground floor. In our original intent, the blade
walls were all laterally supported by slab on every floor. But due to the changes made by the
architects time and time again and again, we never noticed that the blade walls which we
intended to become a part of the LFRS (lateral force resisting system) no longer have the slab for
4 storeys that previously provided support.
Pier PXX unsupported for one level, unsupported length is 11.0 m
Of course when we run the wall design, it is adequate. That is until a third party reviewer
questioned the stability of the blade walls. My initial thoughts were it’s a wall for crying out
loud!
But when I checked the general arrangement drawings, I found out that the comment actually
makes sense!
So for our 200x2000mm blade wall in our sample model, lets see the wall design results.
wall
geometry
wall pier design
Ok no sweat it’s just a little over 1% so it should be ok.
Now let’s do some manual checking for slenderness. So as our guide:
• we are going to assess whether we can ignore the column slenderness based from equation (10-
7). The shear walls resist the lateral loads so for this case our compression member can be
considered braced against sidesway.
cropped from ACI 318M-11
• If it is not slender then case closed. But if it is slender, we either perform a second-order
analysis, or the p-delta analysis, or moment magnification procedure as per 10.10.1.2 We will do
a simple moment magnification procedure for nonsway using 10.10.6 By the way, if you refer to
10.10.5, it will point you to 10.10.6
cropped from ACI 318M–11
• By 10.10.6 we can either compute a moment magnification factor or verify whether our
compression member needs to be resized.
So let’s start our calculations. Punching in the digits, we can confirm that we cannot ignore the
slenderness along the weak axis.
calculations by yours truly
And since this is the case, we need to comply with 10.10.2 to which we will use the procedures
of 10.10.6 to compute the nonsway moment magnification factor.
and… more calcs!
Yes it cannot be negative. Pc is the critical buckling load but the applied Pu is even greater. This
just says that the geometry is nonproportional. So what we deemed to be working in reality is
not!
For the back story, it is safe to say that we made a way out of which.
So do you now got the gist of the buckling wall?
Yes ETABS is a very powerful tool. But it should always remain that way – a tool. ETABS and
others are tools that do their job very well albeit they can never replace the critical thinking
structural engineer behind it. And for us who are driving these machines, let’s do our job
prudently and be in charge, shall we?
What’s With Thermal Analysis And How To Perform It

Posted on January 29, 2018
Apart from the period, ULS, and stability models that we set up in ETABS, we also set up
another type of model which we call the thermal model.
The thermal model is where we consider the long-term effects of the differences in temperature
(thus the name thermal) loading on the various parts of the structure. This check is prevalent in
the Middle East projects where structures get to experience extremes in temperature variances.
In doing this in ETABS, you only need to:
1. apply the temperature load in degrees Celsius to beams, columns, slabs, walls; and raft or piled
raft;
2. Most importantly is to include the point springs, using fixed or pin supports will generate huge
thermal forces due to the fixed restraint;
3. Apply the property modifiers. Note that this is not the property modifiers as stated in ACI. This is
per judgement of the authorities, which can be your design managers, third party reviewers or
government authorities like the Dubai Municipality or DM as we call it;
4. Set up a thermal load combination involving the gravity and thermal load only and run the
design.
How do you arrive on which particular thermal loading values to use? I am not part of the
thermal load selection so I cannot tell exactly how. But from what I know, Middle East have a
yearly record of the extremities (highest and lowest temperatures) of temperature variations in a
monthly basis. I don’t know how they apply statistics or whatnot in the process of selection.
But it’s also worth noting that underground, the temperature is relatively lower (such as retaining
walls and raft or piled raft and interior walls, columns and slabs); above ground, all members are
subjected to a higher temperature because they are directly exposed to the heat during daytime.
Unless of course you have air-conditioning indoors such that a relatively lower temperature is
justified. And sometimes, the topmost floor experiences the highest temperature for obvious
reasons.
So as you can see, loading values can be very diverse which is a guaranteed recipe for a a very
messy discussion but nonetheless you get the picture right?
But how exactly does temperature affect the structure? You can go to the introductory part of my
previous article here about modelling friction in ETABS if you want you want to have an idea.
Previously though, thermal check is just another spreadsheet we used to comply with at the end
of the design using spreadsheets from CIRIA C660, or initial checks used to derive the required
typical mesh. But due to it’s complex nature which cannot be captured in a spreadsheet or two, it
became a standard to include this in the analysis.
So how do I find the outcome of the design emanating from this thermal analysis? Very, very
eccentric. Sometimes it’s counter-intuitive and most of the time it defies well-known patterns
based from the gravity+lateral load combinations.
I will tell you later about the effects of temperature in walls and slabs and what you should watch
out for. But for now, it is worth knowing that thermal loads, when wisely and unanimously
applied will account for effects that will otherwise not be counted with gravity + seismic or
gravity + wind.
The Importance of Repetition, Consistency, and Persistence

Posted on January 10, 2018
In honing a craft whatever it is, you need to do it repetitively; first to get it right and that means
trying to find the perfect angle and the perfect distance (think about firing an artillery). Second is
to totally annihilate the enemy (redundancy for emphasis). Ok if the second one is too morbid for
you, try relating it to trying to achieve excellence.
The problem is we sometimes view repetition as a monotonous, lifeless, and prolonged agony. In
refining a craft or skill however, that kind of perspective is dead wrong.
So what’s the connection of that with structural engineering and design? I thought you’d ask so
let’s get to the connection part.
Structural design is sometimes like dust-settling.
When designing say columns and walls of an entire building consisting of 500 sticks (line
elements) and 300 pier labels for the first time, you have to actually perform the analysis design
over and over and over again in order to achieve consistency – much like dust-settling in a dirt-
filled water in a glass. The goal here is to arrive at a state that the design is already stable, that is
it doesn’t change significantly with the slightest change in the structural model.
That is the manifestation that the probability that you got the design right, is high (assuming you
were able to do it right the first time). Because the more that you get consistent results, the more
confident you become. And the more confident you are of the design results the more vivid you
get to have of the mental picture of the structure ranging from the minute details to its totality.
It’s like the principle of Zen: the structure and you are not separate entities but are rather one that
you get to have a feel of it.
Supporting Story
I was once asked to investigate 2 schemes for wall penetration requirements not previously
considered by our MEP chums. The first scheme is more conservative than the second such that
you will not expect the second scheme to fail.
But lo and behold, the result is a blaring “FAIL” meaning the reinforcement provided before is
no longer adequate. Yeah good grief! Panic sets in.
When I dug into the matter, I found out that the failed wall is not the wall I amended, and it is not
even near the vicinity of which. What’s funny is the disparity in the self-weight pier force in
comparison to the first scheme.
I checked the seismic and gravity base reactions but it’s pretty consistent with the first scheme.
Dang.
Floor by floor I hunted the culprit ranging from the possibility of wrongly applied loads to
property assignments and property modifiers. It’s still pretty consistent to the first scheme.
Then thanks to good ole luck I saw the discrepancy. In the base level are beam elements with
point supports – unintended structural elements in that level. When I deleted them, re-analyzed
and re-designed the corrected model, the expected results finally came out. No changes required
especially on the walls that are too far from the amended ones. The discrepancy in the gravity
loads is already a sign that something is “fishy”. (How in the world did the beams with point
supports at the base, without any connection with the walls in question interfere with the gravity
loads is still a mystery for me that I am still trying to comprehend to this day.)
Can you now get the connection?

Credits go to the engineers who originally designed the walls for being persistent in the repetitive
re-analysis and re-design until results were already consistent (nerdy vocabulary = the solution
converged). Without their efforts I would have completely gone bananas trying to make sense of
the result.
photo from mckinsey.com

How to Draw Your Own Column Interaction Diagram
Posted on December 18, 2017
Image by yours truly
Imagine this:
You woke up in the middle of the night bathed in perspiration. That one particular column, you
just can’t believe the size of which can withstand the forces it should carry. You thought you
already checked all possible load combinations but there’s one combination that only heaven
knows why you forgot to encode in the software.
Dang old conscience hurts now. You decided to check it right then and there even if the penalty
is a night of lost sleep. You perfectly remember anyway the axial loads and the magnified
moments on both axes.
Just one problem.
Your laptop just bogged down and you have no software and no printed material whatsoever to
access to an interaction diagram. Panic sets in. How in the world are you going to check that
column so that you can be assured that it’s going to be fine?
Ok, the above scenario may be overly dramatic and you may not be buying it so let us put it this
way: on your way to structural engineering sensei-dom, we want to learn the basis of everything
structural and leave the programming part to the software. So a new world order may be on the
way but amid the rubbles after the big nuclear bang, you still know perfectly from memory how
the dang thing works (you will need it when you start to build the new world.)
Ok so how does this work?

The point coordinates in the column-interaction diagram curve which are the corresponding
axial-to-bending moment capacity envelope are derived based on different strain conditions
listed below and their corresponding stress diagrams.
The said conditions are the following. It is best if you refer to this spreadsheet with calculations
and detailed explanation in order to fully grasp my points.
Pt#1: Pure axial compression capacity. Zero bending and the axial capacity is based from
equation 10.3.6.2 (10-2). Reduction factor φ = 0.65
Point 1. Snapshot
form ACI 318M-11
Pt#2: Maximum axial compression and its corresponding bending moment capacity. In the
example, the neutral axis is outside the column cross-section which is an indication that the
entire cross-section is under compression. Reduction factor φ = 0.65
Point 2 Condition
Pt#3: Zero strain at concrete edge. Under the combined axial and bending, the cross section is
now on the verge of take off. Albeit, in this condition all the steel are still in compressive strain.
Reduction factor φ = 0.65
Point 3 Condition
Pt#4: Zero strain at extreme steel reinforcement. A part of the concrete is now in tension and the
extreme steel reinforcement is already at zero, meaning a part of the reinforcement is now on the
verge of taking the tension. Reduction factor φ = 0.65
Point 4
Condition
Pt#5: 0.002 strain at extreme steel reinforcement. From zero, the tensile strain now rose to 0.002.
Now the significance of this 0.002 strain is that it marks the end of the compression controlled
zone. Meaning, beyond the tensile strain of 0.002 (and not greater than 0.005) there is now a
transition from the load reduction factor of φ = 0.65 as per Fig. R9.3.2 below. However, at
exactly 0.002 strain, the reduction factor is still φ = 0.65.
Point
5 Condition
How to interpolate the reduction factor. Snapshot from ACI 318M-11
Pt#6: This is the balanced condition where the concrete and the steel simultaneously reach their
maximum compressive strain and yield strains respectively. We are now on the transition zone
such that we now have to make use of the interpolation from the figure above. At the strain of
0.0023, the reduction factor is now computed as φ = 0.675 (you can try and check the
interpolated value).
Point 6 Condition
Pt#7: We’ve now reached the tensile strain of 0.005. This now marks the end of the transition
zone and into the tension zone where the φ = 0.9 for strains equal to or greater than 0.005
Point 7 Condition
Pt#8: Pure bending. The section now is under pure bending (net axial load on the section is equal
to zero). Load reduction factor is φ = 0.9
Point 8
Condition
Pt#9: Pure axial tension. The concrete is now in full reliance to the steel to resist tension. Load
reduction factor is φ = 0.9
Point 9 Condition
Verification
I verified my hand calculations using Prokon and ETABS and a spreadsheet developed for
column design. For ETABS, I extracted the points of the capacity curve and overlayed it in the
points I derived from hand calculations.
You can do your own programming or extend it in Excel. But with the highlighted 9 points, you
now have a basically complete interaction diagram that you can use. All you have to do now is
plot the applied loads (I wish it is within the capacity curve!) Also, don’t forget to magnify the
moments where required.
Now in case you missed my spreadsheet which I mentioned above, you can download it here.
Load Combinations For Seismic Drift Check

I have separated this topic due to the fact that there are discussions that the load to be used to
check drift is by using the seismic load case only and not load combinations involving gravity
loads.
Now it may differ from one company to another but for us, and me personally, I include the
gravity loads instead of just the lateral load.
from CSI
Why? The answer is because of Pdelta.
The provisions above states that the displacements for drift should include the displacements due
to gravity loads which will not be captured otherwise if we use lateral load only. And they also
show the interdependency of the Pdelta and the displacements to the resulting drift values.
And in case you were wondering for the longest time already why do we need to include Pdelta
in drift check, it is this: Pdelta analysis, in the simplest term that I can possibly convey is a
nonlinear analysis where the additional lateral displacement due to gravity loads AFTER the
swaying induced by seismic loading is considered and the answer iterated until it converges, that
is the loads and deformations are in equilibrium. Without Pdelta, the sum of displacements is just
a simple addition of individual load case (deflection due to dead + deflection due to dead live +
deflection due to dead seismic) instead of a more complex Pdelta analysis which is more realistic
(go ahead and try to validate this using ETABS!)
So the list of load combinations below by UBC97 and how are they can be derived are as
follows:
By the way, the EQ loads above can either be static or dynamic. As a side note, some believe that
static earthquake should not be used for checking the drift. Why? Because it is deemed to be
unrealistic (using the approximate period and the approximate vertical distribution of story shear)
compared to the response spectrum where it is likely to be “next to the real thing”.
Now you may argue that you can omit the others on the basis that the other load combinations
are sure to be much more higher than the others. I wont argue. But for me, since it involves
seismic loads that can change in direction (load reversals), I don’t think we can really define a
maximum value globally such that it will always remain true locally. I don’t want to take the
chance of neglecting something which can turn out to be the most critical load combination.
And of course, having discussed the Pdelta above, don’t forget to turn on the Pdelta analysis(!)
And just in case that you were wondering why the reduced dead load multiplier when we can get
the maximum reactions and drifts by using the 1.20 load factor, remember that dead loads are
stabilizing loads that keep a structure in place. There are some portions in structures which are
highly susceptible to high lateral displacement especially the less loaded ones that will sway like
crazy during a seismic event. Yes dude, we need to account for that!
To Release or Not to Release: That is the Question

Posted on November 9, 2017
Let’s decode another enigmatic word that the more senior guys in the office use very often:
release.
If you are a graduate engineer, you might have heard at some point conversations just like these:
“No, the girder will not work with that. Release that connected beam.”
“Release this one…”
And then you felt intimidated and frustrated hearing it again and again. “Release WHAT?!”
Well you will know what exactly today so keep your cool.
The Gist
So what is exactly meant by release? Release is removing the capacity of a certain structural
member to support forces like bending moment, torsion (more of torsion in the next posts) axial
and shear forces. This can be done in almost all structural analysis and design programs such as
Staad, SAFE, and ETABS.
But most often than not, what the senior guys mean is to release the bending moment. Another
simplistic explanation is to try to imagine a fully restrained or a fixed-fixed single span beam.
Once you “release” the beam, there will no longer be negative bending moments at the supports
such that it will approximate that of a simply supported beam.
But first, let us establish some facts you might want to internalize before we continue. After
which the succeeding discussions will no longer be alien to you.
• In a monolithic concrete structure, simply supported beams do not really exist. That is, it can still
carry a bending moment based on the minimum flexural capacity of the section, that is if you
provided the minimum requirement based from the code. The right term would be “fixed, but
only to a certain degree.”
• Aside from the geometry of a structural member, the reinforcement that is not present in a
structural analysis and design software such as ETABS, will determine if the end condition will be
either pinned or fixed. In a beam for example, it will behave more fixed if you provide two layers
of reinforcement on top at the support than if you only provide two top bars.
Why Do We Need to Release?

Yes there are valid reasons beyond your perceived whims and power-tripping of your
officemates and these are:
•
o In order not to transfer the end moments on purpose. Stiffness dictates that the stiffer it
is, whether it’s a structural member or a connection, the more forces it will attract. So
less reinforcement means it will not attract anything larger than what the capacity can
support.
o The development length is not enough. In order for the connection to qualify as a fixed
connection, the bars should be able to fully develop in tension. Imagine a 1000×3000
beam 12 meters long supported at the weak axis of a 200×1000 column. Do you think
the column can really provide a fixed connection?
• The support cannot carry the end moments coming from the beam. Like the column described
above, I am very certain that you will get an O/S when you design it in ETABS.
Where Do Releases Usually Occur?

• On beams supported by girders. This is to avoid introducing torsion (again, more on torsion in
the succeeding posts)
• On beams to walls and blade columns on their weak axis. In columns, additional bending on the
weak axis guarantees increased moment magnifiers that can render the column overstressed or
with unusually high reinforcement ratios. That is why they are often released.
The strength of walls is in its strong axis so instead of transferring out-of-plane bending
moments to the wall, releasing will transfer only vertical and horizontal end reactions as a result
of the pin-end condition.
•
o
 On planted columns. The effect is also to minimize if not remove the effect of
torsion to supporting beams.
But how exactly do you apply frame releases in say ETABS?
Just follow the procedure below. But before that, you need to select first the member you intend
to apply releases.
A Few Words of Caution
There are special instances where releases are required which I will no longer discuss. And be
careful in assigning releases because you might already be messing with the stability of the
whole system. READ: an instability notice in ETABS and/or SAFE or in other softwares for that
matter.
A Compression-Only Pile is Hopeless in Tension
photo from ne-bic.co.uk
The title is too obvious right? Well not really.
Imagine you are into this situation:
A variation order just came from the owner requiring new lift and stair core walls and piling is
already done and you’re required to give feedback immediately regarding the possibility of
adding piles adjacent to existing ones which are originally just single piles. If you’re a newbie
structural designer or still a few years from professional infancy, you would think instantly
(right?) that you just need to add piles, go to the client and tell him and the issue is resolved.
Right?
Well I made that mistake. Not to the extent that I told the client myself but by thinking that just
adding piles to existing ones for new corewalls is necessary to make the old piles work. But
based on the results of SAFE, this required more thought than what I presumed was enough.
Tension, Tension, Tension
When, before adding new corewalls, and you experienced piles in tension, with 99% probability
the corewalls and the supporting piles you added will likewise experience tension.
One important thing to note also is that for single piles which usually supports one column, the
maximum reaction will come from gravity loads. Lateral loads might add a few kiloNewtons of
reaction but it is nothing like how lateral load affects corewalls. Sometimes, load combinations
including lateral loads do not give the maximum pile reactions compared to the gravity load
combination. Go ahead and try to prove this one.
So what’s the connection you say?
When we prepare the pile reaction table, you might have provided minimal if not zero maximum
tensile loads to the single piles because they are not expected to resist tension anyway since the
corewalls should carry the bulk of the sway due to the lateral load. So if you provide new
corewalls on top of these originally compression-only piles, how are they going to resist tension
when they were already detailed as compression-only and the piling work is done and gone?
Of course you can always ask the geotechnical guy on what other fat can he let go just to have
some tensile values. But like in my case where the maximum tension induced is 4300 kN from
formerly 0 kN tension capacity (maximum compressive load that the pile can resist is 6000 kN)
do you know think geo guy can give that much? I don’t think so either.
What Now?
In my situation, we might just remove the proposed additional piles and provide a beams
spanning from pile cap to pile cap of existing piles to support the block works enclosing the
stairs and the lift in order to avoid this tension. In that way, the loads are limited to compression
loads and the effects will be localized only and I won’t be needing to check the other corewalls
already in place, at rest and in peace. Or you can propose a new location for the corewalls which
will not use the already casted piles…
– or, like what we structural engineers constantly face, wait for more challenging updates
from the owner/architects.
Balancing Dynamic and Static Seismic Base Shears
in ETABS
“Is it balanced?”
As a graduate engineer you might have heard this question thrown to and fro among your
colleagues in the office and all you can say is ‘balanced what?!’
This can really be intimidating at first but once you are finally able to grasp this important
concept, you’re already on your way to mastering seismic analysis.
Let’s break down the process involved in this balancing act, shall we?
‘To Balance what?!’

To balance the static and the spectral seismic base shear, which is in other words, is to have a
spectral base shear emanating from the response spectrum analysis at a certain percentage of the
base shear derived from the static base shear equation. And how to actually do this in ETABS.
Static Seismic Base Shear

You already know from UBC97 (right?) the equation 30-4 below what constitutes the static base
shear which is a function of the seismic coefficient Cv, importance factor I, seismic weight W,
numerical coefficient corresponding to inherent over strength and global ductility of lateral-
force-resisting systems R, and approximate period T.
Dynamic Base Shear

As we’ve said above, this is the base shear derived from the response spectrum analysis which is
performed by say ETABS. Please refer to dynamic analysis textbooks if you want an in-depth
discussion regarding this brain-damaging concept (that is for me) of response spectrum. But long
story short, based on this analysis, we will be able to get the dynamic base shear in kNs or
KiloNewtons or MegaNewtons.
How To Balance the Two Base Shears and By How Much?

By how much?
The UBC97 code provides 3 conditions on how much (snippet below). We never applied
1631.5.4 (1) which is Dynamic = 0.90*Static and 1631.5.4 (2) Dynamic = 0.80*Static just to
have some fat stored in the design because usually structural analysis and design finishes first
before having fixed architectural drawing references are available. And by that I mean Dynamic
= 1.0*Static based on 1631.5.4 (3). But the first two provisions are most helpful if you’re
desperate tolimit the sizes of the structural members.
How to balance?
• Get the static base shear.
After running the model, you should be able to get the table for auto seismic load by clicking the
Display -> Show Tables and ticking the Auto Seismic – UBC 97 and by clicking the Ok button.
You should be able to get a table that looks like that below. Notice that column “V” returns the
base shear computed by UBC97 equation 30-4 above.
• Get the dynamic base shear.
Next, get the base reactions by clicking the Display -> Show Tables and ticking the Base
Reaction and by clicking the Ok button. Again, a table that looks like below should show.
• The actual balancing
Now that we know the static and dynamic base shears, we’re now ready to do the balancing. Just
a reminder that it’s “An X for an X Reaction and a Y for a Y Reaction”. The table below should
explain what I mean. And let’s say we’re taking 100% of the static base shear.
So the rule is, the static base shear should be less than or equal to the dynamic base shear.But for
the shear in the X-direction, the static base shear is greater than the dynamic base shear. So we
need to scale it up depending on the ratio of the two which is Static/Dynamic which we derive a
scaling ratio of 1.264. On the shear in the Y-direction, the static base shear is lesser than the
dynamic base shear which is unnecessary and so we need to scale it down and thus the ratio of
0.878.
Now what’s the significance of these ratios? We need to apply these ratios to the scale factors in
the SPECX and SPECY load case data which you can see in Define -> Load Cases -> SPECX or
SPECY.
Once the scale factors are updated for both X and Y, run the model once more and we can now
check the resulting base reactions particularly the shear reactions which are on X and Y. If both
static and dynamic cases are now equal, we can say that we were able to balance them both
correctly.
As side notes:
• There are instances when the static base shear differs on both axes of X and Y.
• The vertical distribution (story shears) are different for both static and dynamic cases. So don’t
expect that the static story shear at level 20 is the same for the dynamic story shear at the same
level.
This may be too much if you’re first timers to perform this balancing but if you do it for like a
gazillion times like I do, it will become like muscle memory. Just remember, it’s just an
extended application of Newton’s third law.
Now if you still cannot get it right, let me know via your comments below or you can contact me
through the contact page and I’ll try to help you as much as I can.
Share. You'll never know who will be helped greatly with this!
Checker’s Guide to Checking General
Arrangement Drawings
Posted on September 29, 2017
I have yet to master how to check structural drawings, particularly general arrangement drawings
(GAs). You see, a good structural model with a faulty set of drawings is garbage if not a disaster
in the making.
I mean it’s not easy to check the drawings (I must admit I am a noob at this). What the hell am I
supposed to look for? It’s one thing comparing the GAs to the structural model, be it SAFE or
ETABS because there is a temptation to regard the GAs as already “perfect” and that we just
need to match it to the structural models. But to actually check the GA for an overall logical
sense of the current framing?!
Maybe it’s because checking the drawings doesn’t really follow a sequence or a definite formula
unlike when you check the ETABS or SAFE model for example because you see definite and
tangible digits telling us that the deflection is excessive, the beams are crying failed, and the
punching shear ratio exceeds unity.
So how are we going to check the dang drawings?!
The project I was into had been a gold mine for lessons learned albeit it was personally painful
for me acquiring them because they exposed a lot of things that I particularly need to improve.
But hey, let me (and I want to include YOU) capitalize on the mistakes I made and learn and
produce better drawings in the future. So shall we?
The list consists of series of questions that will provoke thought going to and from consequence
and reason and most especially action. This list is by no means complete and I will update it
from time to time so for those of you who are interested, you would want to see further updates
that will make us tell ourselves “how did I miss that?!” and reduce the “ay…” and the “oops…”
Checking General Arrangement (GAs)
1. Have overlays with the architectural drawings been performed?

2. Is it consistent with the structural model (ETABS, SAFE) in terms of: slab extent?
location of columns? extent of walls? slab thickness? beam dimensions?
3. If slab is flat slab with/without drop panels, is there a table for drop panel dimensions
(length x width x thickness)?
4. Are there oversized openings placed near supports? Can they be relocated away from the
column?
5. Are there any openings near the wall that reduces the “grip” of the diaphragm to the wall?
Can they be asked to be relocated?
6. Is it likely that these openings will be detrimental in terms of deflection? Is there a need
to provide trimmer beams?
7. For openings near supports, and the slab sort of cantilevers out, is there an adequate back
span to support this?
8. For cantilevers, is adequate back span provided?
9. Are there openings near columns without beams framing into that column? Is it likely
that it will it affect the punching shear? (If openings cannot be avoided and drop panels
are not provided, provide beams.)
10. Are beams properly supported (enough anchorage to a column/wall/support or if there are
any support at all)?
11. Is the supporting primary beam larger in size (depth especially) than the secondary beam?
12. Is there a requirement for the framing in some areas to be identical/similar? Is it
consistent in terms of: Is the gravity floor system flat slab, one-way, two-way? Drop
panel thickness per occupancy? (say for the same span, a drop panel supporting a
landscape load will be larger and thicker than the drop panel on normal occupancy) Slab
thickness at a certain span length?
13. Are there long-span areas? Does the slab thickness on that area require thickening?
14. Are there escalators present in the architectural drawings? Are pits provided? Are beams
provided at starting point and endpoint of escalator?
15. Are façade loads required to be supported on beams?
16. Are the starting and endpoint of stair landings clearly indicated?
17. Are there provisions for domestic or fire/irrigation water tank? Are water tank walls
provided? (99.99% of the time, where there is a water tank, reinforced concrete water
tank walls are required)
18. Is a crawl space slab required? (Sometimes, a crawl-space slab is required on top of the
water tank. It looks something like an attic slab but supported at the bottom.)
19. Are transfer columns properly supported by transfer beams?
20. Are there huge gaps, spans that look “funny”? Are columns or walls required?
21. For bridges (like in shopping malls with bridges in between corridors), are beams
required to receive the end reactions?
How to Open a Newer Version of ETABS from an

Older Version
This is very similar to downgrading the SAFE version. However in ETABS, you have to search
instead for the e2k or the $et and change the program and version via text file.
Once changed, you can now save and proceed to importing it to your version. Again don’t forget
to check ALL the parameters before running (sometimes we observed Pdelta turning off after
importing).
How to Open a Newer Version of SAFE from an

Older Version
Let’s say you badly needed to open a 2016 version of SAFE but you only have the 2014 version
and you don’t have any means to acquire the v2016. It’s not going to work when you open it in
your v2014 no matter how many times you try.
Don’t fret because there is a hack!
All you have to do is have a copy of either the f2k or the $sf file. Open this in text file.
Then search for the program name and version. In the example above, I changed it to “SAFE
2014” and Version=14.2.0 which is my installed version of SAFE and save it somewhere. Be
sure to input your correct version.
Lastly, import the saved f2k or $sf file using your SAFE and that does the trick. Just check all
the parameters first before running the program.
Another option is, since you can import the Excel file instead of the text file in SAFE, you can
edit the contents of the Excel file instead just like the snapshot below. They are located in the
“Program Control” Tab.
Common Structural Engineering Softwares You Should
Know If you Want to Land In a Structural
Design Consultancy
Photo from
shutterstock.com
Pardon the long title.
If you’re a student or a complete noobie you might be wondering what softwares do structural
engineers use?
Chances are, if you hail from a far-flung unknown school and you want to be one of those
designing the tallest skyscrapers, you would want to learn how to operate such softwares because
you will dang need them in your arsenal if you want to land on a structural design job at all.
Yep, that was me at one point in time. I was the dude who badly wanted to make it to a structural
design consultancy job despite that I don’t have the impressive resume.
A noob myself a decade back then, I tried applying at PB (Parsons Brinckerhoff) somewhere in
Ortigas Center. Part of the interview form I filled up asked what structural engineering software
do I know. I proudly wrote Autocad.
But when the interviewer told me “Autocad? That’s for drafting!” it’s just then that I realized
that Autocad is not a structural engineering software. Then I remembered using GRASP
(Graphical Rapid Analysis of Structures Program) when I was in college, the only structural
design software we’ve ever known. Mind you it was a top secret, state of the art software in our
school that we never got to operate one by one because only our professors are allowed to use
them. And the use of the software is not part of the curriculum.
And it was only now that I knew that other schools at that time are already using STAAD and
ETABS.
I still cringe at the memory but let’s proceed with the list shall we?
1. STAAD.Pro – this I should say is the general FEA program that one can use for almost
anything ranging from retaining walls (analysis at least), trusses continuous beams, simple
frames, canopies, etc. in my experience, this is not very much suited for concrete frame or
framed elements combined with shear wall. If you ask me why, I would say the results of say
building period and displacements are just funny (?)
But this is a superb software when analyzing and designing steel structures such as transmission
towers and bridges. In fact, Engr. Albert Cañete, a respected bridge engineer powerhouse in my
country uses this software.
By the way, STAAD is now included in many schools’ engineering undergraduate curriculum.
2. ETABS – by Computers and Structures Inc. or simply CSI, this is my main software when it
comes to design and analysis of buildings with not much of architectural complications. This
software can perform linear and response spectrum analyses which is particularly important in
seismic design. They also ventured in nonlinear analysis and performance-based design. Just
don’t ask me about that subject because I am not familiar with it.
This software is the best when designing frame systems and dual systems. And more
importantly, the application of the UBC97 seismic loads can be clearly seen and verified in the
calculations such that you have added confidence because a lot of hand calculations match that
of the software outputs.
3. SAFE – also from CSI. If ETABS takes care of the verticals, this takes care of the horizontal.
This is best used when analyzing and designing flat plates and conventionally-framed slab
system. Just a word of caution however on the use of design strip moments should you want to
manually calculate the reinforcement. The strip moments shown DO NOT INCLUDE the Wood-
Armer moments that takes into consideration the twisting effects.
4. Prokon – this is a modular type of software that you can use when analyzing 2D continuous
beams/slab system. We often use the continuous beam module for retaining walls (base support
is fixed and top is either free or pinned) to get the design moments. We also use this for simply
supported slabs of elevator roofs, flexure and shear design of beams and general column design
check when we need to produce sensibility calculations (a separate calculation that confirms the
design of say, ETABS)
5. TEDDS – what is admirable with this software is the written, detailed calculations that you
can follow through. This is also a modular type of software that includes retaining walls (now
you can input in detail the friction angle, unit weight of soil, etc) load take downs, pilecap
analysis and design, isolated footings design and others. It also has steel connections design
template and includes calculation of wind loads for buildings.
6. Robot – by Autodesk the maker of Autocad, this is suited for underground projects like
tunnels and underground chambers. I used this once in a project but I never got to master the use
of its features. We don’t use this in the design of highrise buildings.
7. Spreadsheets – depending on the company, some have licensed spreadsheets for column,
pilecap and beam/slab design like we do. This also serves as a separate sensibility calculations
checker.
So the above are what we commonly use. If you have any addition to this list, then good for you.
But then again, let me remind you that softwares are just tools for us. GIGO – garbage in,
garbage out, so that ought to make us extra careful because after all, these tools should always
have a more superior overseer – which is a wise engineering judgement.
How do you build that judgement? I would say 10% reading and 90% experience. So don’t fret if
you don’t have that type of judgement yet. You can start by digging on the last project and
getting every lesson you can get and start learning from them.
It’s Not Working? Ditch It!
Nature has its own rules in order to survive: remove what doesn’t work or purge the unnecessary
for survival.
This also has its own applications in structural engineering. I remember what I’ve read a few
years back in a local technical paper with a title of “Stronger Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Bettter”
by Engr Emilio Morales discussing the plight of deformed bars for reinforcement. The title is
right. And I would like to translate it to structural analysis and design based on my experience.
For our discussion, we will limit it to walls. So first let us keep these in mind:
1. the stiffer the element, the larger the forces that it will attract; and the less stiff the element is,
the lesser forces that it will attract.
2. Stiffness can come in various forms other than the wall’s thickness and assigned property
modifiers
In a recent project I was involved with, the walls (snapshot above) with the blue f12 contour for
shear are giving us some hard time. we are architecturally limited to the thickness and we cannot
add more walls to resist the shear.
At first, we cannot determine why and how the wall is attracting more in-plane shear when both
walls attached to it are perpendicular to the wall. These walls can’t possibly transfer the
additional in-plane shear to the problematic wall! (or can it?)
So first, thickening is not an option since we were limited with the size. Cracking the in-plane
stiffness? It can be but it was too early to resort to the last option.
It’s then that I remembered what Dale said regarding walls perpendicularly sandwiched in
between two parallel walls: the walls on either end acts as flange thus increasing the stiffness of
the wall in between.
Let me elaborate. Like in a steel I-section, this has a considerable increase in the moment of
inertia because of the flanges compared to only the inertia of the web. So structural analysis
dictates that the greater the moment of inertia, consequently increases the shear because shear is
connected to flexure and vice versa.
Ok so problem identified. And the solution? Remove the walls.
Seems like counterintuitive, right? Yes it seemed, at first.
But we did not completely remove the problematic wall though. What we did was we provided
openings, with dimensions that of the door below it to “soften” the wall, get rid of the high shear
and pass it to other walls capable of resisting more loads. Problem solved.
How to Check Wind Drift In ETABS
In my last post I discussed how to check the seismic drift in ETABS using the UBC 97 code. If
you haven’t read about it yet, I suggest that you go back and read it because checking wind drift
in ETABS has almost the same procedure with checking the seismic drift.
Almost the same? Yep you read it right. The exemptions are as follows:
1. Instead of seismic loads, we’ll be using service wind load combinations specifically from ASCE 7-
05 (please bear with my redundancy. Personally, I find it very effective in mastering concepts. If
you don’t agree, just please skip the redundant and duh statements). I will not explain in detail
however the difference between the ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 7-10. I just want to highlight that
the 7-10 wind load is already factored considering that unity is the load factor for wind for
strength design load combinations.
2. P-delta effects are not considered in wind load drift checks.
3. The property modifiers to be used are different from that of the modifiers in checking seismic
drift.
So let’s focus on the property modifiers to be used in checking the wind drift.
Again let’s focus on ASCE 7-05. Wind loads are SERVICE loads (i.e. you need to apply a load
factor greater than one to make it an ultimate load.) So having established that, we will need to
apply property modifiers that correspond to service limit loads. ACI 318M-11 stipulates that
Screen grab
from ACI 318M-11
And zeroing in in the provisions of section 8.8.2 which is

Screen grab from
ACI 318M-11
Which points us to 10.10.4.1(a) through (c)
Screen grab from

ACI 318M-11
So since we’re dealing with service loads and further cracking is not anticipated in walls let’s
remove cracked wall property modifier of 0.35*Ig in our tabulation. Summarizing the provisions
of 8.8.1 and applying it to 8.8.2(a) and (b), we get the following
And as such, we can end up with 2 models which we can check side by side and take note of the
differences. And so putting it all in our ETABS model and running the analysis model, we can
now extract all the related tables.
Still with me? If not please take time to digest the information above. Good to go? lets proceed
to the table below.
Yup, the table above is based on the actual results of a current project of mine.
Like how I explained the seismic drift table extract, let me interpret the table above:
1. Columns A-H are what you will get from ETABS.

2. Column A is the story level where the drift occurs.
3. Column B is the load combination. Be sure to choose the correct load combinations.
4. Drifts will be resolved in the 2 principal directions in ETABS which are the global X and Y in
column C.
5. Column D is the resulting drift. Please note that the maximum inelastic drift is not applicable in
checking wind drift!
6. Columns E to H are the point label and the point coordinates where we can locate the
aforementioned drifts.
7. Column I and J are optional. Column I is the allowable drift limit for wind as defined below.
8. Column J is also optional. This just compares the results of column D and column I. But this is
helpful in filtering the floors where the drift failed.
And to complete the table, below is the reference for drift limit from ASCE 7-05:
Screen grab from ASCE 7-05
By the way, limit used in the table extract is 1/500 which is midway of the limits shown above.
Whew!
Armed with two stability checks, you can now evaluate with confidence whether your current
framing is adequate or not. And remember, it means nothing if all elements pass the ultimate
strength design but fails the seismic and wind drift check. At some points you may need to add
new walls or new frames to stiffen your building.
Be sure to leave a comment in the comment section below if you want to clear something or if
you have anything to say at all.
For a copy of the drift table extract from ETABS, you can get it here: Wind Drift Computation
How to Check Seismic Drift In ETABS
For this post, let us assume first the following to be true:
1. We know the reason why we are checking drift (excluding the fact that it is required by all
relevant codes)
2. We have basic background regarding Pdelta moments
3. We know how to compute static base shear based on the code and understand at least the
basics on the dynamic forces our building is subjected into
4. We know what’s seismic mass
Checked all of the above? Cool.
Now let’s say the model is complete: we have applied all related gravity loads, defined seismic
parameters well, and we’re now able to set up all relevant load combinations.
Before we proceed, we need to apply first the correct property modifiers as per code. A quick
explanation of this is that before being subjected to seismic forces, under gravity loads, the
beams, columns and walls will experience cracking. And cracking will reduce the moments of
inertia of the members.
So which property modifiers are we going to apply in the model?
Based on ACI 8.8.2 we need to consider either/or of the following: section properties defined in
section 10.10.4.1(a) through (c) or half of stiffness values based on gross section properties,
Screen grab from ACI318M-11
The code permits to use either one of 8.8.2 (a) or 8.8.2 (b). If you’re to ask me, it never hurts to
check both conditions considering that at least you have prior knowledge to the behavior of the 2
different models with different reduced stiffnesses which is very valuable when making a
decision when evaluating the current structural system’s performance during seismic activity. By
experience however, the resulting drift from either is never far from the other but it is worth
checking and noting the difference.
tabulated by yours truly
Also, if you have some torsional irregularities, you will need to settle them now and provide the
adjusted eccentricities prior to checking the drift. Remember that the larger the eccentricity, the
larger the forces on the extremities which subsequently increases the drift.
So both models ready now?
Let’s use UBC97 which is still applicable to a lot of projects even in the middle east.
The elastic deformation that UBC 1630.9.1 refers to as “Delta s” is the elastic horizontal
displacement caused by the seismic shear and when checking drift, this should include the effects
of gravity loads. By the way, use the ultimate load combinations when determining drift.
Screen grab from UBC97
But of course we need to convert this elastic horizontal displacement to the maximum inelastic
response displacement defined as Delta m before we compare it with the allowable values of
either 0.025 or 0.02 times the story height depending on the fundamental period.
And since we’re talking about drift, note that drift is a unitless quantity taken from dividing the
relative displacement of a certain story with the story below to the storey height.
Still with me? Great.
The good news is, ETABS will compute these displacements for us including the drift which we
can just extract from the tables. The computed drifts will include both drifts in the orthogonal
axes X and Y. You just need to go the tables and find the Story Drift data and open it with Excel.
We just need to add a few items to the extracted table to arrive at the correct values in order to
interpret the results correctly. Don’t worry though, I will try my best to discuss the table below:
Screen grabbed based on the outputs of an actual project of mine.
1. Columns A-H are what you will get from ETABS.

2. Column A is the story level where the drift occurs.
3. Column B is the load combination. Be sure to choose the correct load combinations.
4. Drifts will be resolved in the 2 principal directions in ETABS which are the global X and Y in
column C.
5. Column D is the resulting drift which is the Delta s defined above.
6. Columns E to H are the point label and the point coordinates where we can locate the
aforementioned drifts.
7. Column I is optional. Column I is just the same as Column D.
8. Column J is the maximum inelastic response displacement or the Delta M which in UBC is
0.7*R*Delta M, R is the “numerical coefficient of the inherent overstrength and global ductility
capacity of lateral-force-resisting systems” and is 5.5 in our case (Building frame system with
concrete shear walls)
9. Column K is the allowable limit of drift. Since our period is less than 0.7 sec, the maximum
allowable is 0.025
10. Column L is also optional. This just compares the results of column J and column K. But this is
helpful in filtering the floors where the drift failed.
Quite easy right? Don’t worry if you are not yet confident of the results. That’s what more senior
engineers are for, which is to make sure that the model makes sense. But since you now know
how to compute the drift yourself, you are on your way to seniorhood so just keep at it.
Also if you want an Excel copy of the table above, you can get it here Drift Computation
SAFE Life Saving Hacks – Importing Point Reactions to An

Existing Geometry
This narrative describes how to import point reactions from ETABS to SAFE with existing
geometry (slab, raft, pile caps and springs) minus the point reactions.
I drafted this following a conversation from a counterpart in the Middle East and including all
the comments and minor additions thereafter.
You can always export the geometry from the ETABS model if you want to. But most likely,
you would have done a lot of modifications already such as spring values, reshaping a pilecap,
design strips (most importantly) and whatnot and doing it all over again will be a pain in the ass.
So unless you want to resist and go through the troublesome and error-prone path to martyrdom,
then this is for you.
Exporting Point Reactions from ETABS
1. Go to File\Export\Story as SAFE V12.f2k File…

Screen Grab
2. Under “Story to Export” choose the lower most floor (B1 in the example below). For “Loads to
Export” choose either “Export Floor Loads and Loads from Above” or “Export Floor Loads and
Loads plus Column and Wall Distortions” (if the supports were either pinned or fixed, any of the
two would have no difference.) And be sure to select all load cases and load combinations under
“Load Cases and Load Combinations to Export”
Screen Grab
3. Press OK and save the exported f2k file.

4. Import the f2k file to SAFE.
Preparing the SAFE File Which Has the Geometry and Floor Loads and Where the Point
Reactions Will Be Imported
1. Open the $SF file using either Notepad or Wordpad

2. Delete ALL currently applied point loads under the TABLE: “LOAD ASSIGNMENTS – POINT
LOADS” portion
Point Load Assignments. Point Loads
3. Open the imported f2k file to SAFE, the one that contains the point loads to be transferred.
4. On the text file containing the raft geometry, replace all the contents under the TABLE:
“FUNCTION – RESPONSE SPECTRUM” with the contents coming from the newly imported f2k
file to SAFE.
Response
Spectrum Function. Screen Grab
5. On the text file containing the raft geometry, replace all the contents under the TABLE: “LOAD
CASES 07 – RESPONSE SPECTRUM – GENERAL” with the contents coming from the newly
imported f2k file to SAFE.
Load Case Response Spectrum. Screen Grab
CASES 08 – RESPONSE SPECTRUM – LOADS APPLIED” with the contents coming from the newly
imported f2k file to SAFE.
Response Spectrum Loads Applied. Screen Grab
CASES 09 – EXTERNAL MODE DATA” with the contents coming from the newly imported f2k file
to SAFE.
External Mode Data. Screen Grab
8. Save and close the $SF file.

9. After saving and closing, reimport the $SF file without the point loads to SAFE by opening a new
SAFE window and clicking File\Import\SAFE .F2K File…
Screen Grab
10. Save after importing the model.
Extracting the Point Loads and The Point Coordinates From the Exported f2k File From ETABS
1. Import the f2k file to a new SAFE file as described in procedure #4 above.
2. On the imported file, points with loads and beams marking the location of walls should be seen.
3. Export the point loads and point coordinates into mdb by clicking File\Export Model\Access
.mdb/.accdb File…
Screen Grab
4. In the dialogue box, choose “Point Coordinates” and “Table: Load Assignments – Point Loads”.
Be sure to select all loads in the “Select Load Patterns…” button. Then click the OK button.
Screen Grab
5. Save the .accdb file
Importing the Point Reactions and Point Coordinates to the SAFE File with Complete Geometry
1. On the open SAFE file with complete geometry without the point loads, click File\Import\Access
.mdb/.accdb File…
Screen Grab
2. On the “Import Tabular Database” dialogue box, select “Add to existing model” and click the
“Advanced Options…” button
Screen grab
3. On the ITEMS WITH SAME NAME tab, select the following:“Add DB object to model with new
name”
“Add DB item to model with new name” “Ignore subsequent items”
4. On the ITEMS IN SAME LOCATION tab, select the following:“Replace old one” under Line and
Area Objects “Replace old one” under Point Objects and;
Screen Grab
5. Click OK twice. Choose the appropriate .accdb file and click the Open button
As a sensibility check, compare the resulting point loads applied against the point reactions in
ETABS. The result should be the same. Also, you can display the point loads in order to see
whether all areas are loaded as intended.
Most importantly, to ensure that the transferred spectral base shear to SAFE is the same with that
in ETABS (which should be the same or approximately equal with the static base shear), make
sure to untick the 2D Plate option in the “Advanced Modelling Options” dialog box and to check
the horizontal base reactions after finishing the run analysis.
Screen Grab
Also, make sure that the wall and column positioning in the SAFE model with geometry (old
model) is aligned with the latest layout/or align with the new loads/column/wall positioning
based on the exported reactions in ETABS. If there are any discrepancies, update the geometry
accordingly.
Pointers in Coordinating Slab and Wall Openings Prior to A

Detailed Check
Almost always in the projects that I’ve been involved with, MEP slab and wall openings will not
be finalized until the architects are finished, which is usually, a few minutes after we have
already submitted our structural drawings or when we’re already through with our structural
calculations.
It’s an inevitable phenomenon that it is rather common in all projects such that it becomes only a
minor nuisance rather than a major setback (palm on forehead). The requirements of the owner
will change, and the architects and MEP will have no option but to follow, and eventually this
will include us accommodating the said variation.
Without the luxury of time waiting for our calculation to confirm the proposed openings, we can
instantaneously tell everyone in the meeting with a high degree of certainty our verdict on those
pesky openings minus the deal-breaker “I’ll get back to you on that”.
For slab openings:

1. For slab openings, preferable opening location is in the midspan for deflection purposes for both
one-way, two-way and flat slab
2. Avoid openings on drops. There will be punching issues that may arise as well
3. Avoid long openings beside columns and/or beams where an adequate backspan is impossible
4. Where deflection becomes a problem, provide trimmer beams. This should be told during the
meeting with the other disciplines at the onset so that they would expect beams regardless if
there is a deflection problem or not
For wall openings
The HVAC
opening below ground floor does not allow continuity for the load path of the pier above and below.
As much as possible, stack openings on top of the other on one vertical line only. The link beam
depth may decrease but the piers on the either side provide continuous load path to the
foundation.
Snapshots above are screen-grabbed
Check the Demand/Capacity Ratio Before

Committing Sizes!
Let’s just get back to the basics, the foundation of complex stuff. And as such, I’ll bombard you
with stupidly simple “duh!” truths regarding demand-capacity ratio that will make you cringe:
1. Demand over capacity ratio.

2. Actual vs allowable.
3. The lesser the ratio is, the greater is your allowance for contingencies.
4. If the ratio nearly approaches unity (1.0) the more likely that things will get screwed up with the
slightest change in geometry or loading.
5. If the ratio is greater than 1.0 the design is screwed to level 2. Way beyond unity and the design
is already garbage.
We have one retaining wall failing in in-plane shear due to thermal forces acting on the slab. We
run the design in ETABS and I stupidly decided at that moment that I’ll commit to this wall
thickness to which I did. Then came a few edits, insignificant edits in the model such that a shear
failure is highly unexpected. But lo and behold, due to the software’s minor glitch in
computational accuracy, it mocked me right in my face by going overboard by a few kNs in the
allowable shear capacity. Good grief!
When dealing with owners and architects, it’s usually like a game of chess where everything is
touch-move and so you cant go back on your word especially when committing sizes of
structural elements like slab thickness, column sizes, wall thickness and beam dimensions.
Oh well, a wrong is a wrong and if there is opportunity to fix it, one should go and fix it.
So with that lengthy introduction, one should check the D/C ratio before committing sizes to the
architects. Some prefer a 10% allowance while others are content with just 5%. Going to
specifics:
1. Columns. The best is to compare the PMM ratio if you’re using ETABS. If the section is already at
4% reinforcement ratio, then you might be pushing your luck too far. 1-2% rebar percentage is
considered safe. And don’t forget to check shear as well!
2. Walls. Based on my personal account above, the actual shear is 10 kNs shy of the maximum
allowable leaving almost no room for error which resulted to a miss in predictions. Check the
shear first because a shear failure in wall almost always warrants an increase in size. Next check
the flexural reinforcement. TIP: a high in-plane shear is almost always accompanied with high
bending moment, and vice versa.
3. Slab and beams. If you’re checking deflection, be sure to settle it first because usually,
reinforcement required for deflection is 2 to 3 times greater than required by the ultimate limit
state.
So there it goes. Remember, check the DC ratio before committing anything!
ETABS Life Saving Hacks: Hacking Model Instabilities

You should be able to find this file
Howdy everyone こんにちは!
I’m sure you missed my structural engineering blogs. Lately I’ve had the transition from chasing
the limelight to settling and basking in anonymity and a quiet life.
But hey let’s get down to business shall we?
So, after modelling the entire geometry, had all the loads applied, entered the correct load
combinations and then you get the annoying notice that there are instabilities which is why the
results won’t show the specx and specy calculations, and deadlines’ looming, how irritating can
that be?!
Yep, instabilities can be a pain in the ass and they’re not easy to spot. But it does not mean it’s
impossible to have an instability free model. So how do we start to trouble shoot?
What I mean in item number 1 below

1. First, we need to set the “Advanced SapFire Options” tab to Solver Options→Standard Solver
and it’s corresponding Analysis Process Options→GUI Process. This will give you a detailed
output on certain points where there were lost computational accuracies in the analysis. If you
can find anything about negative stiffness or if the values exceed 11.0 digits, zero in to the
location because that’s exactly the area that causes the instability. In the example above, the
problem is the diagonal value of the matrix which turned zero. If the diagonal value of a matrix
turns zero, then there is instability (you can refer to structural analysis textbooks to verify this).
2. Very near joints. If you are using manual mesh, this is no problem. You can just merge the points
and that mostly solves the issue. But if you’re having this problem and you are using auto mesh,
then it’s a little bit harder to tweak. Generally, you can slightly alter the meshing and the
geometry or reshape somewhere to get this right. By the way, this can also happen to walls that
you manually meshed.
3. End releases. If your columns for example are pin supported at the bottom, and say you applied
end moment releases at the bottom of the column as well, this would cause instability because
of the redundancy. If you intend to have zero bending moments at base, then applying a pin
support would be enough and needs no further member end releases.
4. Disjointed members. This normally produces very high displacement values. You can pinpoint
this by animating the model and looking for those “insanely huge” displacements that are out of
the ordinary. A big help would be by looking at the Modal Participating Mass Ratios table and
animate at the mode of the peculiar period.
5. Pdelta. This is a bit harder to explain because it has something to do with the framing which is of
course a case to case basis. Sometimes it means stiffening a relatively flexible part of the
building.
I hope I made myself clear with these. And as I recognize that it is very hard to put every
imaginable scenario there is to writing this, I welcome your queries which I’ll try to answer if I
can. Just look for my email address on the right side and send your ETABS model and queries
about what’s causing the instability and I’ll point it out free of charge tomodachi (ともだち) just
for you!
So don’t be disheartened to see that instability. Where you cant solve it yourself, ask for help.
Never hurts to ask the knowledgeable dude out there. The important outcome of this is, if you are
able to master the art of trouble shooting you are one step ahead in doing sensibility checks
which is indispensable.
So stop pouting when you see that instability. Just find it. And I would like to give you the same
advice I’ve been getting while studying Nihongo:
がんばってください ! (Keep at it!)

How to Model Friction in ETABS and Its Application in
Thermal Analysis
“Where there’s friction, there’s fun” our professor in Physics 11 way back in college told us.
We all gave him knowing smiles. Sensing something else, he proceeded to explain the
mathematical explanation that relates ‘fun’ to friction.
You remember this, right?
Combining Newton’s 1st and 3rd law of motion, the block won’t move given that force F does not
exceed μn. So putting both forces in equilibrium, F = µN.
Fun right? It is indeed. Brace yourself though, this is going to be weird stuff.
In the Middle East where there are significant temperature fluctuations all year round, a structure
should be provided with the necessary reinforcement to inhibit the formation of cracks during
casting. And that means you’ve got to have information on the construction methodology and the
sequence of pouring before you can do your calculations. That is the short term effect of
temperature.
On the other hand, the implication of fluctuating temperatures on the structure during its lifetime
is called the long term effect.
I will not discuss about the short term effects, CIRIA already took care of that. I will discuss
however how we considered the long term effects in ETABS. But first, let us have some
flashback on temperature, cracking and its effects on the structure. Time to set the imagination
mode on.
The rigid bar. You thought you already got rid of this, don’t you?
Tension/Compression
When the temperature rises, a body tends to expand. But for the rigid bar, the expansion is
prevented by the fixed support and thus, the internal force that resulted due to the rise in
temperature tends to “compress” our rigid bar. Are you able to follow?
And when the temperature drops, a body tends to shrink. And so for our rigid bar, this shrinking
or shortening is prevented by the fixed support and thus the resulting internal force is tension.
Cracking
When a beam, slab, column, or wall or any part of the structure bends and exceeds the modulus
of rupture, it cracks. Depending on the magnitude of the bending moment, it can generate cracks
ranging from microscopic to visible cracks. Although there are no researches yet that link cracks
to reinforcement corrosion, cracks can be very unsightly. And though there are no significant
reduction in the strength of structural members due to “normal” cracks, non-technical people can
get overly concerned and the said cracks might cause undue panic in extreme instances.
Cracks due to bending. Photo from http://www.answers.com
Now, pulling a cable for example, beyond its allowable pulling force will produce tears or cracks
in its strands before rupturing.
For our rigid bar bending under its own weight and other imposed loads while being
simultaneously subjected to tensile stresses can produce significant cracks due to the
combination of pulling and bending. And because concrete has a very low tensile strength,
additional bars must be provided to limit the formation of the said cracks.
Temperature gains that induce compressive stresses tend to “seal” the cracks and thus the
compression – bending action is not as critical as the tension-bending action.
Confused yet? It can get confusing alright. The rigid bar is simple. However, for a building with
varying stiffness and complex interaction between structural members, calculation of combined
tensile and bending stresses is next to impossible, except with the use of computers.
Ok, hold on tight. We’re about to include friction in the chaos.
The Fun Friction

Like this one!
For our rigid bar model, let’s replace the fixed supports by a friction mechanism. If we apply a
drop in temperature, the bar tends to shorten and shrink. But depending on the end reaction and
coefficient of friction, the support may not yield, and so there is tension in the bar. But if the end
support moves, the bar is relieved from tension.
For structures founded on soil which serves as the point of contact between the structure and
friction, the interaction is much more complex. Normally, one would expect that there will be no
movement under the presence of heavy loads such as columns and walls supporting multi-storeys
compared to columns supporting just one storey. Again this depends on the force normal
(perpendicular) to friction forces and the coefficient of friction. And again, throw in all the
geometrical complexities, variety in loading and differences in temperature exposure, and it will
render the structure very complicated. Where there are large restraints such as walls, there tends
to exist large amounts of tensile stresses due to the change in temperature.
And once you were able to model all of these, all you need to do is look for hotspots: large
tensile stresses including the bending moments (recall that cracks are produced by bending and
tensile stresses), key in the forces on spreadsheets that check crack widths and you will be able to
find the adequate reinforcement.
Modelling Friction in ETABS

Springs are not the correct means of modelling friction. It is only applicable for piles, since we
can derive the horizontal springs with ease. But not friction, because once the area of concern
moved, the restraint is now released and the horizontal spring already has a constant value.
Credit goes to Dale, my design manager who dug deep into ETABS to explore the friction
isolator link.
First, we need to model a link. That is something like a “column” support between the raft and
the soil. Height of which does not matter so long as we set the parameters correctly. But first, the
point support below the link should be fixed.
Modelling of links under a raft.

Now to define these links, we go to the Link Property Data. For Link type, we chose “Friction
Isolator”, tick Directions U1, U2, and U3 and tick all boxes under Non Linear.
The Friction Isolator Link Type
Under Properties, click “Modify/Show for U1…” U1 is the direction of Z axis – translation
(up/down). Stiffness under the Linear and Nonlinear Properties is the tributary soil subgrade
modulus, hence we have Edge, Corner, and Interior. Interior has a full value of the subgrade
modulus, Edge has only half, and Corner is a quarter of the total value of subgrade modulus.
Under U1
For both U2 and U3 that denote the X and Y translation (horizontal), set everything else to zero
except for friction which should be as per ground investigation report. And the Effective stiffness
should be as big as possible (will discuss that in the next paragraphs). According to Dale, he
hasn’t yet discovered why there should be an effective lateral spring for friction but based on
preliminary analysis, the larger the value, the more accurate the results will be.
Under U2
Having set all of those, we must now define nonlinear cases for the load cases. The aim of which
is, to load the gravity loads first (that is, normal forces should engage first before friction can
take place). And so for this example, we started our nonlinear case with both self-weight and
superimposed dead loads. And we continue from this nonlinear state in applying the temperature
change.
Dead load nonlinear load case.
Temperature nonlinear load case. Continuation from nonlinear dead load.
Now we have to verify the results. Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction and
the force normal to the surface. The shear forces of the links in the X and Y direction must be
combined in vector form (that is SRSS or square root of sum of squares) and the result should be
equal to the product of friction coefficient and the axial load on the link. And the greater the
horizontal effective stiffness is, the greater is the accuracy of the results. Why? We cannot
answer it just yet. We still have a lot to read to answer that.
We haven’t used this method yet extensively as this is still relatively new to all of us. This may
be crude but in my judgment, this is the best way to model friction compared to how we did it
previously. It’s just a lot more tedious especially in the modelling process but this is the nearest
exact mathematical solution that we can find. And comparing it to the crude methods we did
previously, this is the next best invaluable tool for thermal analysis.
Things to Remember When Designing a Foundation

Massive
reinforcement for a raft foundation. Photo from http://www.aci-net.com
Designing the foundation is by no means the most boring task a design engineer will undergo.
Nor does it mean that it is the least prestigious. You see dude, the mightiest skyscraper needs to
rest on a mightier foundation. Otherwise, its glory will be mythical, one that would remain on the
design drawings and will never be constructed to reality.
Foundation design requires a lot of common sense. A lot of it. In fact, foundation design is all
about making sense of the super substructure that will support the superstructure.
For a few guidelines, I’ve listed the essential ones below. If I missed anything or if you might
find anything missing or you want to augment my discussions, please hit reply and key in your
thoughts. I, including the technical community of structural engineers will greatly appreciate
your thoughts about it.
Action not equal to reaction = Broken Jaw. Photo from http://www.fxguide.com
• Make sure that all loads above the foundation are transferred correctly. Check base reactions.
Check applied vertical point loads for gravity loads such as dead and live loads and see that they
match the overall base reaction from the structural 3D model. Check for horizontal base
reactions for wind and seismic loadings.
Burj Khalifa
foundation. Photo from http://www.civilenggseminar.blogspot.com
• Know thy geometry. This is an exciting part for me. If it’s just a pad foundation or a typical 3-pile
or 4-pile-group pile cap, it can really get a little boring. But if the foundation system is supported
directly on soil or a piled raft with a playful rise and fall of elevations and mind-bending
underside crankings then it’s game on. This also implies the designer to be mindful of possible
MEP trenches or pits. It is important to model the geometry as near to the actual situation as
possible.
Modelling the pile and the pile spring to account for the effects of strut and tie. My snippet from
SAFE.
• Model the correct soil support. Consult the geotechnical reports for pile spring values and soil
springs for rafts usually defined as the subgrade modulus. Take note that the subgrade modulus
is defined as the allowable load (kN, kips) per square meter (or square feet) per millimeter (or
inch) settlement. Usually, the unit of the subgrade modulus in SI is in kN/cu.m There were also
instances when we modelled the pile, 75 mm into the cap soffit to account for the strut and tie
effects.
You don’t want your house floating like a butterfly, do you? Photo from
http://www.daad.wb.tu-harburg.de
• Apply hydrostatic uplifts where required (emanating from ground water table). Aside from
gravity floor loads, the hydrostatic uplift can be critical for piles with high tensile loads and
bearing pressure for rafts. More of that on the proceeding item. The knowledge on the
underside of raft topography is critically at play here. Remember that the deeper the pits and
depressions are, the greater the uplift loads are.
Cant find any related photo so here goes something else… Photo from http://www.zyg.com.sg
• There should be no soil tensile stresses because obviously, only compressive stresses (bearing
pressure) are resisted by the soil. Only piles can carry tension loads due to lateral loads and
hydrostatic uplift. If there are positive tensile stresses, it should be investigated. And if there
really is tension to be resisted, it might be required to run a non-linear analysis to capture the
effects of uplift or to alter the existing geometry of the foundation in order to eliminate the
uplift.
Nothing beats hand calculations, hey honey, did you hear me? Photo from
http://www.mibb-design.com
• Never underestimate the power of manual load take downs. This is the most powerful tool for
foundation sensibility checks especially for piled foundations.
Same same. Photo from http://www.betanews.com
• Same layout and loading, same answer. Be it column loads or pile reactions, it should be almost
the same. The “fishy” one will stand out with this check.
An extreme version of “settlement”. Photo form http://www.sott.net
• Check for settlements. Differential settlements should be kept below the allowable levels
because it will cause additional stresses to the whole building. How? Imagine a portal frame and
one column settles by a certain amount of vertical displacement. The beam connecting the
columns will incur an additional bending moment which might be very significant. So the whole
system is not really “at rest” because of the initial stresses brought about by excessive
differential settlement. Another visual effect of which is cracking of brittle partitions such as
glass façade, block works, and cracks on corners of doors and windows.
At least Noah’s ark floated! Photo from http://www.article.wn.com
• Check the flotation. Your structure is not Noah’s ark! Large hydrostatic uplift can cause a
building or structure to float. Don’t ignore uplift forces, it’s a must to consider this in the design
process because it’s a basic serviceability requirement.
Agree bro! Photo from http://www.jitbit.com
• Extra serviceability requirements. Aside from flotation, one should check that the structure is
stable by checking the sliding and overturning.
That should hurt! Photo from http://www.imgarcade.com
• Avoid punching the raft. Other than one way shear and bending, one must ensure that columns
or pile caps especially single-pile pile caps do not punch through the supporting raft. What we
do is we do a handcalc of the actual stress from the column load to the critical perimeter and
compare it to the allowable stress.
I don’t think you can minimize that do you? Photo from

http://www.ahmadalikarim.wordpress.com
• Minimize the crack. In some parts of the world just like in the Middle East, it is but common to
check crack widths emanating from service bending moments to mitigate the resulting crack and
its probable effect on the corrosion of reinforcement. This aims to provide a compact and robust
section with optimum reinforcement. We usually delimit our cracks to 0.20mm for
raft/foundation undersides and 0.3mm on top (except where there is a water tank on top of the
raft, and that we take 0.20mm as a limit, or it also depends on the nature of the fluid retained
where a more stringent requirement of 0.10mm crack or lower is required).
How to evaluate the mass moment of inertia in ETABS
Mass moment of inertia. Photo taken from http://www.physics.louisville.edu
Good times, good times.
The project I am currently involved in will undergo a wind tunnel test in order to derive a more
realistic wind loading for the building.
But before they can generate results, they asked for the following data to be furnished to them :
1. Modal displacements per floor. We need to provide the displacements for the first 3 modes of
vibration.
2. Seismic mass, center of mass, and center of rigidity per floor.
3. Mass moments of inertia per floor.
The last one was relatively new to me because honestly, I haven’t given much thought about it. I
cannot find any sense of urgency to learn the said concept, and so I’m glad to be assisted by
a design manager when the time came. Luckily, he is a part-time nerd like me who has a knack
for deep technical discussions such as this topic on the mass moment of inertia and its role in
dynamic analysis and in the overall structural response.
By definition from http://www.engineersedge.com, the “mass moment of inertia, usually

denoted I, measures the extent to which an object resists rotational acceleration about an axis,
and is the rotational analogue to mass.” This should not be confused with the stiffness used in
defining the global and local stiffness matrices of members used for structural analysis that is:
Hooke’s law. Taken from http://www.hendrix2.uoregon.edu
and that it is not the same with the K matrix of the equation of motion:
Engineering Dynamics Equations. Taken from

http://www.formulasheet.com
The stiffness matrices used for modal analysis are the translational and rotational stiffnesses.
Note again that the rotational stiffness stated is a function of mass and it’s distance to the center
of rigidity while the rotational stiffness due to its rigidity is based on its geometric properties.
ETABS generated mass moment of inertia…
ETABS produces a mass moment of inertia about its center of mass (by the way, you need to set
all diaphragms to “Rigid” for it to generate this calculation). This is what I’ll call the local
rotational stiffness. But since we’re dealing with a system, we need to get the global rotational
inertia which is the building twist about a point called the center of rigidity. And so just like
moment of inertia where we need to transfer it to a certain location other than its centroidal axes,
the mass needs to be transferred to the center of rigidity as well.
Center of Rigidity, CT and center of mass, CM. Photo from http://www.debug.pi.gr
So how did we figure out that one? By manual calcs. How? By summing the mass of individual
elements (floor elements, walls, beams and columns including the applied line loads and floor
loads that constitute the seismic mass or the “mass source”) multiplied by the square of the
distance of its centroid to the center of rigidity. It’s an onerous process but there’s really no other
way to verify the result from ETABS. Luckily, based on our calculations, when we added the
centroidal mass moment of inertia to the product of mass and the square of its distance to the
center of rigidity, the results can be safely considered acceptable (discrepancy was kept to a
minimum).
Table above are values from ETABS while the mass moments below are based on manual calculations.
The results yielded a relative error of +/- 2.19%
Were you able to follow?
Another eureka moment indeed, thanks to the guidance of a very patient design manager. I
cannot hide my satisfaction and elation in being a part of decoding that one, it’s like finding gold
in my backyard. But as usual, not a lot would share my excitement. Mostly, I’m given the blank
are-you-going-nuts look. And most of the time, I just try to understand but sometimes it is kinda
frustrating when no one seems to share that joy with you.
Hell I’m still happy despite all that. That’s why I’ve written it here…
Static vs Dynamic Earthquake Load Case: When Do We Use

Either or Both?
Do we always have to use both the static and dynamic earthquake load cases for design? When
can we use the dynamic case only?
There is no exact rule as to when can we exclude the static and consider only the dynamic case
only. And as far as I know there are no codes to regulate this, because the prompting situations
cannot be generalized and because it really depends on the situation.
I was fortunate enough to encounter this situation in one of my projects. Fortunate because even
if it gave me a hell of a headache in trying to solve the issue, I learned a ton in exchange.
The project is located in the middle east. Seismic code is UBC 97, zone 2B with soil type Sc. It
is a 24-storey building with a bearing wall lateral load resisting system. The placement of the
walls in my judgement is “odd” – a very eccentric layout of walls favoring the right side and a
lot of horizontal elements resisting the shear along X direction and fewer walls on the north-
south direction.
Odd ain’t it? All columns except the 6 columns in the middle are engaged or participates with the wall in
resisting lateral loads. Told you…
True enough the walls were a pain in the ass. Nothing’s working!
With my project lead and design manager, we desperately tried to find ways to make the walls
work, since the current arrangement of walls and columns was the only arrangement that was
allowed by the current architectural layout. The possible solutions that we explored were to add
link beams to tie the lateral system. And the other is we cracked the walls that exceeded the
modulus of rupture due to tensile stresses brought about by tensile forces and in-plane bending
due to lateral loads. The last solution worked, albeit the resulting wall thicknesses were
insanely huge for a 24 storey building and reinforcement ratios were still very high – ranging
from 2% minimum to the highest requirement of 3.95% (limit is 4% based on the ACI 318M-
11). Aside from that, it’s very odd cracking almost all the walls because almost all walls are in
tension, I am not exaggerating on this one! It’s as if I’ve cracked all the walls such that
redistribution is simply impossible.
The gray walls are “cracked walls” i.e. property modifiers for f11,
f22, m11, m22, and m12 are reduced from 0.70 to 0.35. Can you believe that a large portion of the wall
base is in tension?!
When I looked at the governing load combinations, I found out that governing load combination
for most of the walls are the static earthquake load combinations. In an effort to understand why,
I decided to plot the storey shear. True enough, there is a great disparity between static and
dynamic, no wonder everything is struggling!
See the gap between static (EQX – orange line) and dynamic (RSX – gray) for the X – direction …
See the gap between static (EQY – orange line) and dynamic (RSY – gray) for the Y – direction …
I’ve tried to exclude the load combinations containing the static earthquake load and lo and
behold, the largest reinforcement percentage is 2.5% which occurred at the bottom. So that’s the
culprit!
I presented this to my design manager and he was convinced also that we can use the design
forces using dynamic earthquake loads only or else nothing will work (wind loads and gravity
loads were included too although the resulting storey shears for wind loads are way below the
storey shears generated by earthquake hence it was not critical.)
Aside from design, this static-vs-dynamic dilemma have profound impacts when calculating the
storey drifts and required building separations. A friend told me that they don’t use static
earthquake load cases because it’s not realistic. I can see his point. Deriving the earthquake loads
via the static force procedure gives only an estimate of the earthquake forces ideal for buildings
with very regular layouts. But as the building layout gets complicated, a more complicated
and rigorous structural analysis is needed to capture the real behavior of the building. This is
done by employing the dynamic analysis which accommodates all combinations of translational
and torsional motion due to ground acceleration that is produced during a seismic event.
So will it be dynamic only, or both? Without any code regulating this, it really depends on the
results. If the resulting design and wall sections are over the top from expectations, removing the
static earthquake load combinations can be an option. Otherwise if both will yield acceptable
results based on the calculations and wise engineering judgment, it never hurts to use both
dynamic and static earthquake load cases.
Crack that (Wall)

For scheme design, you might have increased that wall thickness from a nice looking 400 mm
for a 22 storey building to an awkward size of 800 mm thick and yet instead of the demand
decreasing and solving the problem once and for all, the failing walls just seem to creep up to the
next floor level.
That’s what happened to one of my projects recently. With everything else checked and assured
sensible, the thicker wall sucked up more forces than the previous thinner section did and it
affected portions of the wall on the succeeding floors.
Aside from that, the link beams are all over the place, stretched well beyond their limits. Add to
that our agitation to the thought that no more walls are allowed by the architects and we need to
finish it soon because of the deadline.
Good grief!
If you’re relying on shearwalls to stabilize your structure from lateral loads and you’re basically
out of options to decrease the load or alter the current layout and you have to make it work,
(“piniga ang design” in my native idiom) there is a way.
Crack that. No, forget Souljaboy, crack the walls I mean.
Modulus of
rupture taken from ACI 318M-11
The idea is to crack the walls that have stresses exceeding the modulus of rupture (see above
equation from ACI 318M-11). Since the cracked walls will have reduced modifiers, the excess
force that it can no longer carry will be passed to other walls that still have reserve strength (that
is, it did not yet reach it’s theoretical cracking limit).
I also checked the walls adjacent to the problematic ones that are supposed to be taking care of
the push-pull action. They’re underutilized. We cant find a way to tie the underutilized walls and
the problematic ones to hopefully engage them together in a composite action. “Crack the
problematic ones,” said my design manager, “para maipasa sa mga tamad” (so that the slack
walls will work.) We’ve had a good laugh after that.
Thankfully it did work! The slackers finally took part. Before cracking the walls, I was getting a
3.98% (maximum allowed by the ACI 318 is 4.0%) reinforcement for the problematic wall but
now it was down to 2.61%. at least there’s a bit allowance for contingencies.
Now, how did I crack the walls in ETABS? Follow this procedure:
1. First is to create an envelope for ultimate load combinations (you wouldn’t want to investigate
all the combinations one by one!)
2. Make sure to select the “Max” option before viewing the f22 contour. A positive f22 contour
denotes walls in tension in units of kN/m.
3. Next is to get the equivalent cracking load per wall thickness. That is fr * thickness which is
0.62*(fc’)^0.5*thickness with a resulting unit of N/mm or kN/m. All walls exceeding this value
need to be cracked (you need to do this visually and manually by checking each wall elevation) .
Crack only the panels that exceed the modulus of rupture.
4. In cracking, apply a property modifier of f11 = f22 = m11 = m22 = m12 = 0.35 which is pursuant
to section 10.10.4.1 of ACI 318M-11.
5. After cracking, run analysis, make sure static and dynamic earthquakes are balanced, and design
the walls. There will be a redistribution of forces until everything is in equilibrium.
Cracking Modifiers from
ACI 318M-11
Hopefully all walls will now work. This is a tedious solution and we only did it once and we
never did another round of iteration after that. And judging the results which we found
sensible, cracking the walls is definitely one of the solutions to go to if everything else (from
reducing the load to altering the framing) is not possible or simply not allowed.
ETABS Life Saving Hacks: Copy/Paste to $et File
Unlike in SAFE where you can import/export Excel files or copy from Excel and paste to SAFE,
ETABS doesn’t have that feature – yet (maybe they will eventually incorporate this on their
succeeding upgrades or maybe they won’t.) This would have been very handy especially if you
start from scratch to define a hundred or so load combinations. But until then, you need to do it
manually by defining it one by one in the GUI.
It’s not a pleasant task but it is necessary. Just imagine creating service wind load combinations
to check the wind drift. In ASCE, there are 4 cases to consider including the possible
combinations of the eccentricity (ETABS generates 12 wind load cases). Add to that the SLS
(service limit state) gravity and seismic load combinations to complete the piling loads or to
check and ensure that the allowable soil bearing pressure is not exceeded. And of course the
ultimate limit state or ULS load combinations such as ultimate wind load combinations to design
the columns and wall reinforcement, and the ultimate seismic load combinations to assess the
seismic drift and to complete the necessary strength level combos.
But the list doesn’t end there.
If you have hydrostatic uplift, retained soil, Mononobe-Okabe loads and envelopes, that’s quite a
lot to accomplish. And as I said, if you’re starting from scratch, it’s quite a handful. But if
you don’t have the luxury of time to build the new model on an old ETABS template where your
load combinations are already defined, don’t fret my friend because this is your lucky day. Like
Staad’s text editor, you can use the text file $et of ETABS.
First, you have to rename the load patterns and load cases (including the necessary load factors
and other parameters) with the same load patterns and load cases you are copying from.
Study the syntax (how ETABS defines load patterns, cases, combos, and combos within a
combo, see sample above), generate the syntax considering all load combinations in Excel, paste
in the $et file, save, and import the said text file and that’s it! A half day’s work done in less than
half an hour.
The same can also be done for frame column definitions. In one of our projects, the client
required that we input the rebars reflected in the column schedule to the model so that when a
third party reviewer will run the design, he can see in an instant if the columns pass by just
looking at the PMM ratio or the demand/capacity ratio. In order to shorten the time required for
this, our design manager defined the column tags, sections, and reinforcements. After which it’s
just copy, paste, and import and it’s done.
What is Vibration and Resonance? The Basic Concept
Behind and A Simple Mathematical Explanation
The
vibrating Tacoma Narrows Bridge. GIF from http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu
If you say that you and a friend or anyone close to you are in the same wavelength or you have
the same vibration, it means both of you resonate with each other, or both of you are in sync.
And the thing is, it is good. But in structural engineering, if the frequency of the excitation and
the structure matched, it’s not that good at all. It will result in a “bad vibration”!
Boss Albert discussed this on our subject earthquake engineering under the topic of vibration and
resonance due to harmonic and periodic excitations. His story about the actual application of the
mathematics of vibration is very simple yet very compact that even a young engineer can grasp.
And so I’ll relate his story with much gusto in my hope to illuminate the minds who seek a very
simple explanation on the subject. I hope I can relay the very heart of which with clarity like how
Boss Albert explained it to us:
Boss Albert had this steel bridge project which lies between Boac and Santa Cruz in
Marinduque. The owners were alarmed one day when they allegedly experienced a violent
vibration in the structure. And because of this, they called his immediate attention.
Along with a colleague who is also an expert in the field, they went to the site to investigate.
They attached motion sensors to the bridge and rented a pick-up truck to simulate traffic which
hopefully would cause the bridge to vibrate.
The pickup truck went back and forth along the bridge at various speeds. Nothing happened. It
vibrated yes but the vibration is within acceptable limits. The behaviour of the bridge is normal.
This puzzled them and so for the whole day they repeated the process with the pick-up truck but
to no avail.
When the day was almost over, exhausted and the problem still unsolved, they sat on the sides
pondering what to do next.
Then came the answer to their dilemma.
People coming from Boac going to Sta. Cruz were flocking to cross the bridge. An approach is
still under construction and thus unpassable for vehicles. And so the passengers have to pass
through the bridge on foot going to the waiting jeepneys on the other side. They were in a hurry
for a better seat inside the jeepneys because those who cannot make it inside will have to seat on
top (which is typical in the provinces.)
It was a steady rhythm of 2 beats per second. Consistent. Periodic.
Just then, the bridge started to vibrate in a disturbing manner. So this was it.
He never told us how they solved the vibration problem which was beyond acceptable limits but
it’s enough to point out the concept of resonance.
So what just happened?
The frequency of the external excitation (people walking) matched that, or came very near the
natural frequency of the bridge and thus the violent vibration.
How do you explain it mathematically?
The dynamic response factor.
According to structural dynamics books on the topic regarding harmonic and periodic excitations
(the snapshot of the equation above was screen-grabbed from Anil K. Chopra’s Dynamics of
Structures, Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering) the ratio of the static
displacement to the dynamic displacement Rd will be at its largest if the frequency of the
excitation will match that of the natural frequency of a structure or a bridge which is the example
above. In the first term of the denominator, if the frequency of the excitation w(omega) =
w(omega,n) natural frequency, it will cancel or will yield zero, leaving only the second term.
Without punching in the digits, we can see that the divisor will be less and thus will have a
greater quotient and thus a greater Rd.
So let’s say we have a steel bridge with a damping ratio of 0.02, if w(omega) = w(omega,n) the
resulting Rd factor would be 10. It just means that the static deflection will be magnified tenfold
and it will vibrate back and forth violently. It would be lucky if it would only happen within a
second or two but prolonged vibration of this magnitude would snap something somewhere and
may result to the eventual failure of the entire bridge.
And so the main reason why they put tuned mass dampers on bridges and other similar devices
on buildings is to prevent any external excitations to vibrate the structure equal to its natural
frequency.
Effect
of vibration control devices or dampers. Photo from http://www.mathspig.wordpress.com
Moral of the story? According to Boss Albert, it is a bad idea to march in a bridge in a
synchronized manner with your friends!
Sensibility Checks for the ETABS Model: Ways to Assure
the Structural Engineer that the Model Makes Sense
“Dang, where are you, Sense?” Photo from http://www.tikkun.org
The ETABS model is now complete but does it make sense?
One way to strengthen the structural gut feel as discussed in my previous post, is to observe
trends. And one way to do this is to keep records of previous results or table extracts, compare,
list other notable behaviours, and take action. I know that this is a very vague statement so I am
going to list and elaborate one by one the importance of the records/tables that I extract after
revving up the ETABS model.
1. Wind Load Definition
Changes come along the course of the design process and there is nothing unchangeable when it
comes to wind loading. For example, in the ASCE code the gust factor can drastically change the
design wind loads (as in our experience, the change in the tensile load on the wall skyrockets the
rho value with a mere 0.10 difference!).
Wind load definition per ASCE 7-05 as extracted from ETABS
The same is true with the other parameters such as the eccentricities, windward and leeward
coefficients, and whether the parapet wall is included.
A quick view on this table assures you that intended changes are implemented and unintended
edits are checked and modified.
2. Seismic Load Definition
Aside from the seismic loading parameters such as importance factor I and the R factor, this
table when compared with the previous runs, can tell whether something changed in the framing
or weight. For example let’s say the base shear increased. With respect to the overall building
weight, the base shear is a function of the seismic mass consisting of dead loads and a percentage
of live loads as defined in the codes.
Auto seismic load definition ASCE 7-05 as extracted from ETABS
With a constant building stiffness, an increase in the seismic mass will result in a lower building
period and thus a higher base shear (since earthquake is an inertial force, the heavier the mass,
the greater the force required to get it in motion. That makes sense?) The same mass however
when supported by a stiff structural system will require a larger force to move it and thus a larger
base shear.
Now with a constant seismic mass, if the period increased it may mean that the building stiffness
“softened”. Just note that there is a limit to the minimum and maximum base shear based on the
code be it ASCE or UBC.
Seismic base shear. Cropped from
ASCE 7-05
3. Modal Participating Mass Ratios
This is the actual computed fundamental period of the structure based on the structural properties
and deformational characteristics of resisting elements as per Section 12.8.2 of ASCE 7-05.
Computation of actual building fundamental period. Cropped from ASCE 7-05
According to good practice, the first two modes should be translation (that is in the x and y
directions or in directions orthogonal to each other) and the third should be torsion. I have yet to
find a good reference for this but if you do know where and in what reference will I find it,
kindly post it in the comments section.
Why? The explanation is this:
A true period along X displaces the largest fraction of the seismic mass along X only. The same
is true on the Y direction. If a considerable fraction of the weight is displaced on both directions
for the first and second mode of vibration, then it may require rotating the whole model
depending on the animation of the modal vibration or the modal direction factors. More of that in
a while. And in case you don’t know, ETABS chooses the period of, say along X direction the
largest mass percentage displaced along X as it is with the Y direction. Are the periods in the
table below similar to the seismic load definition table above?
Modal participating mass ratios. Notice the period of modes 1 and 2. Table was extracted from ETABS
You’re welcome.
Note also that you can check the model for disjointed elements that need to be meshed depending
on the said table. And one tip, as a rule of thumb the fundamental period of a building is roughly
the number of stories divided by 10. So if you have a 2 story building and the software gives you
a 20 second period (equivalent to a height of a 200 story building!), something is very wrong and
it ought to be investigated and corrected immediately.
4. Modal Direction Factors
Speaking of directions, the modal direction factors show the trajectory or the direction of
vibration. Ideally, if for example the first mode of vibration is along X, the direction factor along
X should be 1.0 and that of Y = 0.
Modal direction factors as

extracted from ETABS
So if the first two modes of vibrations are translations, then the direction of the first mode should
be orthogonal (at 90 degrees) to that of mode 2. However, you cannot perfect the modal direction
factor of 1.0 for let’s say UX and UY = 0. There’s a tolerance depending on the designer. Like
the building I am in charge of designing. There is a 5 degree discrepancy from the horizontal and
yet the design manager finds it acceptable.
Notice the deviance from the horizontal

and vertical axes.
And if there is a need to rotate the model, just be sure to view the animation of the modes so that
you’ll know at what angle you should adjust, be it clockwise or counter-clockwise. It would
either vibrate along quadrants I & III or at quadrants II and IV.
5. Base Reactions
While all the sensibility checks I presented earlier are important, one of the most important is the
base reaction table because it tells you whether all the forces in your building makes sense and
that “nothing’s lost” nor anything’s insanely over. Say you have a typical two story residential
building and it registers a 650 MN of self-weight reaction. Does it make sense? The building
whose global reaction is shown below is a 4 story building with dimensions of roughly 100m x
100m and has a self-weight base reaction of ≈ 645,000.00 kN or 645 MN. Maybe the problem in
the said 2 story building is a wrong property definition or an erroneously applied loading value.
You will never know immediately if you have any problem with these if you will not check the
base reactions.
Base reaction table as extracted from ETABS
And of course there are the lateral loadings.
How does the wind load along X compare to that with the Y direction. Have you wondered why
the base reaction along X is greater than Y when you defined it as Wind Y for example? Or say
if the wind base shear along X is greater but the building area (the larger the area, the greater the
wind force it has to resist) along Y is greater, then we may have a problem.
One cannot make a conclusion that will be universally true to all projects. Every project is
unique and it will pose its own unique challenge no matter how similar they are to previous ones.
But generally, the digits should always make sense. And if you’re considering modal and
response spectrum analysis in earthquake, the base reaction is your tool to know whether the
static and dynamic load case is balanced, i.e. base shear due to dynamic loads should be greater
than or at least equal to the static earthquake load case.
These are very straightforward methods. And it may come to the point of being boring and
monotonous but these sensibility checks are very handy and very easy to perform in order to spot
the odd.
But then again, it will take a lot of constant practice to strengthen that structural gut feel to feel
that something’s not right in the model. Especially if there really is something very wrong, or a
specific check was not performed and you don’t know it yet.
“It’s no trick to get the right answer when you have all the data. The real creative trick is to get
the right answer when you have only half the data and half of it is wrong and you don’t know
which half is wrong.
—Melvin Calvin
The reason these are called sensibility checks is to ensure that the building makes sense. Full
reliance to the software without verifying the results is like touring the nuclear power plant with
blinders on, which may lead to catastrophic results. To quote my professor, which I believe is
quoted by many – “GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.” This is to assure us that the inputs aren’t
crappy so as not to produce crappy results.
Always remember that we as structural engineers or aspiring structural engineers have very little
tolerance for errors because the safety of one if not thousands of lives depends on our diligence
to ensure that our calculations are correct and that they make sense.
Does that make sense? What about your structural model?
Rigid or Flexible? Modelling of Supports for Buildings With

Supports Located on Different Levels
This was a deduction by my design manager for the project we’re working on at the moment. I
will not disclose the name of the project but I tried to capture the behaviour in the simplified
structure that I analysed so that I can share the lessons we learned.
In multilevel structures where supports of the lateral load resisting system extend below ground
at different levels, there are two ways to model the building supports: it’s either rigid (either
pinned or fixed) or flexible (on springs).
Before we break down this topic piece by piece, let us first remind ourselves once more of the
basics.
• Fact 1: There is no such thing as perfectly pinned or perfectly fixed support condition. The idea
of infinitely rigid supports where rotation and translation is nil is just an ideal condition. There is
only a certain degree of fixity to every support including the ends of beams with a minimum
amount of reinforcement such as a beam framing to a girder.
• Fact 2: The correct way to model a soil support is by springs whether by area (the subgrade
modulus) or by point springs (commonly used for piles). However, spring is not the best
representation of friction, more of that on succeeding posts.
As a trial system, I made a simple model in ETABS where the geometry and loadings are the
same except for the support conditions so that the comparison would be apple to apple. The loads
applied are only lateral loads. The lateral load resisting system are 300mm thick walls founded
on different levels. I labeled each wall with piers P1, P2, P3, and P4 from left to right
respectively.
300mm thick walls connected by 800×1000 beams. Lateral loads of a total of 3000 kN are
applied at the upper floors. Pier labels.
Walls Founded on Rigid Supports

For a rigid support, the inner walls or that part of the lateral load resisting system supported on a
higher elevation will take most of the lateral load and thus will incur larger shears, bending
moments and axial loads. In the sample model captured below, the walls in the middle are fully
engaged such that the total lateral load of 3000 kN is absorbed in the upper level of support. See
snapshots of resulting axial, shear, and bending moment diagrams of piers.
Axial load on piers. Rigid model.
Shear forces on piers. Rigid model.
Bending moments. Rigid model.
Walls Founded on Springs

If we use springs, 16.40% of the total lateral load of 3000 kN is absorbed at lower level supports.
And compared to the rigid model, the shear and bending moments of middle walls are lesser. See
snapshots of resulting axial, shear, and bending moment diagrams of piers with springs as soil
support.
Axial loads. Flexible model.
Shear forces. Flexible model.
Bending moments. Flexible model.
As a summary, I tabulated the resulting pier forces per type of model for each wall.
Tabulated forces for comparison of the rigid and flexible models.
If we use the rigid model, most likely the inner walls will have a conservative design and the
same would be true to the raft supporting it, while the wall at the sides, with little participation
will not be carrying much lateral load and so might produce a smaller requirement and so will be
the raft.
If we use the model with springs, the lateral load going to the inner walls will be lesser since the
walls founded on the deeper levels will be engaged as well. Translated to the raft design, the raft
supporting the walls in the middle might not be that conservative compared to the rigid model
but the reinforcement in the raft for the deeper level will beef up.
So which is which? The one with the rigid supports or the one with springs?
For me if time allows, it’s good to investigate both conditions. Use the model with the rigid
support to design the inner walls and the inner raft and use the model with springs to design the
outer walls and the raft supporting it.
Note again that this is only a very simple model and that it doesn’t represent the actual framing
system of a building. It will take a lot of trial runs and iterative design works before finally
figuring out what type of supports will be used. And in some cases, the design results using
either a rigid or flexible base doesn’t vary that much which only supports the conclusion that the
type of support for such condition doesn’t really matter at all.
How to Develop the Structural Engineer’s Structural
Gut Feel
Not that gut. Photo

from http://www.howtogeek.com
In writing, the first draft almost always sucks. After proofreading it the first time, it gets less
shitty. Refine it a few more times and the first draft that sucked is now a winning piece in a
literary contest. How did the sucker-turned-winner article transform? By re-reading, editing and
rewriting. There’s just no shortcut to that. Repeating again and again and again is the only key.
So how does this introduction relate to structural engineering?
Repetition is the key to mastery and developing what I’ll the structural engineer’s structural gut
feel. More than learning the most sophisticated software, more than memorizing the American
and British codes, the structural gut feel is the most important skill a structural engineer will ever
develop and it is something that he must possess. It’s what separates the machines from us
humans. The real structural engineers from the structural technicians/encoders. Why? Because it
is the structural gut feel that tells you that something’s just isn’t right. And when you are already
an experienced designer, you will know that something’s not right just by relying on that gut
feel.
And the thing is, it’s almost always right 99% of the time.
I learned the importance of which the hard way on a certain hotel building I was designing
somewhere in Palm Jumeirah in UAE. (I am not saying that I already acquired a fully developed
structural gut feel. There’s no such thing, as far as I know. It is a continuous process that goes on
all throughout our professional lives as engineers.) We already submitted the for-construction
drawings along with the design calculations. However, there are some more changes in the
architectural plans. And since my hands were full at that time, an officemate of mine applied the
said changes in the model and re-ran the design. The changes are minimal and are expected not
to have an impact on the design. But to our horror, a big portion of the wall is failing in PMM
(axial and bending). The provided reinforcement in the plans was T20-200 but he was getting a
minimum of T25-150! That’s for a 300mm thick core wall so you can just imagine the big
difference in the required ρ-value of reinforcement!
I am right and they are wrong, I told myself. I diligently did my responsibilities of ensuring that
everything from the columns, walls, and piled raft are designed with a sound engineering
judgement to the best of my abilities.
I tried to trace what went wrong and I found out that the culprit was the balancing of the static
earthquake to the dynamic response spectra case, I forgot to balance it! It was later revealed by
my own investigation that the dynamic earthquake case governs the design of that part of the
shear wall, with the aid of the story shear plot. The static earthquake load case on the x
direction are smaller and thus it cannot compensate for the effects of the balanced dynamic case.
Storey shear plot showing dynamic vs static load case. See how Spec X governs vs EX.
With a bruised ego I tried to explain this to my senior and luckily, he never scolded me nor
blamed my shortcoming. But of course I was so humiliated of my mistake.
After which, I browsed through my wall schedule mark-ups and found out that my initial
reinforcement was T25-150 and the new mark-up was T20-200. So! I should’ve questioned the
result in the first place. If it transitioned from T20-200 to T20-175 I would’ve known that I’m
right on track. I mean the results would be somewhat consistent. But with a jump that drastic,
something’s really off because it would take a significant change in framing or loading to
increase it by that much.
So how did this mistake led me to develop my structural gut feel? First, this showed me the
importance to know and predict trends. So how did I accomplish this? I kept records. Every run I
extract pertinent tables and compare. It seemed stupid at first and a waste of time but I persisted.
I scrutinized every detail such as base reactions for example. The self-weight global reaction
increased. Should it increase in the first place? Have I thickened slabs, walls or increased the
sizes of columns and beams? Or did I make an error in the geometry definition?
Observe trends. Ever noticed why the bending moment at the interface of the pile cap supporting
a wall or column and the piled raft increases with additional axial load given a constant
hydrostatic uplift? See what I mean?
Make observations. Ask why. Does it make sense? If in doubt, dig some more, punch in the
digits. Numbers don’t lie in structural engineering.
Do you get to fully develop this structural gut feel in just one project? By any means no. The
oldest and most experienced structural engineer will never be able to experience
EVERYTHING in structural design. Is this an easy task? No. Never is, never was, never will
be. It will involve tedious calculations, late night technical soliloquys, determination and very
hard work.
The structural engineer is never afraid of hard work because it’s his ally, he grows in it, he
becomes wiser and it develops his structural gut feel that even if he sees only the structural
drawings, he senses that something is wrong even if he still didn’t see the calculations. He feels
it, and he is right. And thus he validates his hunch and develop solutions until his gut feeling
already returns a satisfied and confident vibe.
Right on Dr. Brothers! From

http://www.sherievenner.com
A Note Regarding Shell Force/Stress Contours in ETABS
In viewing the forces in walls and slabs using contours, it is of great help to look at the lower left
portion of the screen which shows the maximum and minimum value of forces/stresses. This is
particularly helpful if you’re evaluating the areas that crack under tensile loading which are
usually caused by lateral loads.
Location in the screen of maximum-minimum force/stress in ETABS. Notice that contour averaging at
node is “By Objects”
And just in case you are trying to pinpoint the exact location of that force, you have to set the
Contour Averaging at Nodes to “None” to identify that specific panel. Because if you set
Contour Averaging at Nodes by “By Objects” you will not see graphically where the maximum
force/stress occurs. And the reason is because ETABS is averaging the forces/stresses to adjacent
panels.
Say for example you’re threshold is 1200 kN and you saw a value of say 1500 kN, don’t panic,
yet. That value might just be occurring on a certain panel. After all the real life wall isn’t really
made up of separate panels and so averaging is completely justified.
As an example, please refer to the succeeding photos as I emphasize some points.
Notice the random-like contours if the averaging is set to “None”.

Close up of boxed portion (where the maximum value occurs). It can be seen as we hover the pointer on
the edge.
The same boxed portion where the maximum force occurs. Notice that the force is already dispersed
and you could hardly see any trace that the maximum value occurs here.
The Importance of Story Shear and Story Drift Plots

Two very simple yet often overlooked tools for the structural engineer when it comes to lateral
load analysis are the plots of the story shear and story drift.
But before we get to that, what are these story shears and story drifts anyway? Story shear is the
graph showing how much lateral (read: horizontal) load, be it wind or seismic, is acting per
story. The lower you go, the greater the shear becomes (see figure under story shear below).
Story drift on the other hand is the plot of the resulting drifts per floor. Drift is a unit less number
resulting from dividing the relative lateral displacement to the story height, and it shows how
much a story is displaced by a given load. The usual limit for wind drift is H/500 while for
seismic drift it is 0.01H. A graphic definition of a story drift is given below.
Story drift. Photo from http://www.mdpi.com
That settled? Ok, let’s begin our detailed discussion.
Story Shear
In story shear, you can visualize the possible governing lateral load on a certain floor at a given
direction. And this will aid to understanding or investigating why wind governs over seismic on
certain direction or vice versa. Aside from which, you can check whether something is “fishy” –
or something just doesn’t seem right according to the guts of us structural engineers.
Sample of a story shear plot based on an actual project. Plotted on Excel from the result of ETABS by
yours truly.
Cases in point include:
1. Seismic base shear. Base shear has an upper and lower limit be it ASCE or UBC. Based on the
above graph, I can now visualize and confirm that the base shear on both X and Y directions
should be the same since the resulting Cs (seismic response coefficient) is less than the lower
limit of 0.01 (ASCE 7-05 Equation 12.8-5)
2. Why is the wind base shear along Y greater than that along X? Normally, the larger the area that
the building catches, the larger or the more wind force it can attract, or simply, it’s a function of
the tributary area. The yellow plot which is the wind force dominating the podium area (5th step
down). You will notice that the seismic shears on its left is relatively small compared to the wind
force and thus, load combinations containing wind load in the Y direction governs the design of
walls at the podium levels.
Story Drift
Viewing the story drift can tell us many things about the structure we are designing. Sensibility
checks that can be derived from the said graph are the following:
Sample plot of story drift based on an actual project. Results are generated from ETABS and plotted
using Excel by yours truly.
1. The larger the drift, the less stiff the structure is. If the drift is greater on the X-direction than
that of the Y-direction, the Y direction may be stiffer. And as such, you can start to trace
whether this should really be the case by looking at the structural plans. If it says otherwise,
then you will need to do a detailed check.
2. You can view which specific floors require “strengthening” or which floor requires beefing up
the stiffness. Does the roof sway like crazy? It’s completely possible if the roof area is less than
the story below it. Does it sway excessively on the first level? If you have a multi-story structure
then you might want to add shear walls or lateral bracings to address it. On the graph above, the
wind drift on the 13th floor is excessive as this is the framing of the helipad walkway and it is
made up of a steel framing.
3. Serviceability is a basic requirement that aims to limit the story drift. Is the resulting drift within
the prescribed limits? If not, then you might want to add a few stiffener walls if the architects
permit or maybe suggest another framing that will work.
As I mentioned earlier, the story shear and story drift plots only aid the understanding of a
building’s behavior when subjected to lateral loads. These are no end-all and be-all solutions that
will solve or explain all related issues of the building by just plotting and looking at it. Detailed
and other rigorous checks might be required.
I just discussed the importance of the said graphs and this does not include how to actually
extract the forces and deformations from a structural analysis program. But I bet that since you
are reading this, you already know how to. But just in case you don’t and you want to know, or
you want to know anything structural engineering in nature, you can use the comment section
below and I’ll try to answer what I can answer.
ngineering design3 Comments
ETABS Life Saving Hacks: Move Joints/Frames/Shells

The lead office told us that the structural plans should be rigidly consistent with the ETABS
model. And by rigid, I mean the structural model should exactly be the same in terms of the
location of wall and column centerlines.
Come on let’s face the reality: you cannot really model perfectly the actual layout on the
structural model. It is far too complex and it will need a lot of simplifications and rationalization
in order to arrive at a solution that very nearly represent the actual situation.
But anyway orders are orders and so we need to align ‘em all vertical elements – columns and
walls. All you need to do is draw the dxf’s in CAD and import them in the ETABS model. And
of course as expected, the dxf of wall lines and columns will not match exactly the walls and
columns in the structural model.
Luckily, we didn’t have to remodel the whole walls from scratch. We just need to maximize the
use of the Move Joints/Frames/Shells option. It saved us from the horror of having to stitch back
the slabs floor by floor (imagine doing this for 30 floors or more!).
Using the move option stated above, the structural modeller will save time and will minimize if
not totally eliminate the hassle of drawing a new geometry especially if it is angled and not
orthogonal (along the X and Y plane).
Note: You can select the nodes only and all elements attached to it such as columns, beams, slab,
and walls will move as well.
For example, a footing must be moved to its final position because of the movement of the
column. The footing consists of 4 separate shell elements connected by a common center point as
seen in the screen shot below. It is intended that the central point of the footing to be moved
beneath the column.
So the first step is to select all 9 joints of the footing. Go to Edit menu and click Move
Joints/Frames/Shells option. A popup window should show this:
Click on Pick Two Points on Model and click first the point on the source object you want to
move (point 1 on the figure above) and finally click on the point where you want the geometry to
be moved (the point beneath the column which is point 2 on the figure). Finally the dialogue box
will automatically compute and display the displacements in X and Y direction:
Note that there are instances when a value will appear on the Delta Z. Always remember that in
ETABS, the z axis is the vertical axis and if your intent is to move the footing on the X and Y
plane only, just set the Delta Z value to zero. Once done you can click either OK or Apply and
the footing should move to its intended position:
Now that they are connected, the load transfer should be from the loads to the column to the
footing base. For a final check, the central point should connect 4 shells (comprises the footing)
and one column with tag C159 in this example and it was connected correctly (see Connectivity
Joint Object Information Dialog Box below):
Note that you can also do this for walls. Just make sure to select all points with the same X and Y
coordinates in all floors. Where walls are meshed in each floor, it is best to choose the said points
on an elevation view so that you can see whether you’re missing any point at all.
Why Do We Need Washers in Bolts?
Bolt, nut and washers. Photo from http://www.danasrge.top
I really did not have any idea at all why. It just made sense when my graduate school professor in
advanced design of metal structures explained it. The explanation was so simple I’m sure that
the retention of the said info will last for my lifetime.
Bolt anatomy. Photo from
http://www.washersampdryers.com
So why?
WASHERS ARE NECESSARY FOR SLIP CRITICAL CONNECTIONS TO HOLD THE

JOINED MEMBERS WHERE IT IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO FAIL IN CYCLIC LOADING. THEY
FIRMLY HOLD THE MEMBERS TOGETHER SO THAT THEY FUNCTION AS ONE.
For example, a certain member in a steel bridge truss is joined by bolts. Since traffic is a moving
load, it generates cyclic loading which is the constant exchange of compressive and tensile
stresses in the member. If the connection of joined members which is a weak link, is not
designed and detailed properly, it will fail over time under these cyclic loadings. For a more
simplistic example, let’s say you’re holding a tie wire (alambre) and you repeatedly bend it back
and forth. First it will generate heat, it loses strength in the process until it ruptures.
As the bolt is tightened by applying torque to the head and the nut (the head and the nut are
always hexagonal in shape, that is, it has 6 sides) it generates a tensile force in the bolt while the
washers provide the surface required for a clamping action (it presses the joined members firmly
together) and prevents sliding by means of friction in the base metal.
Simple as it looks, bolt washers play a very vital role in the health of the overall structure where
they are employed.
Single/Double Curvature Bending of Columns
It is important to know whether a column bends in a single or double curvature depending on the
end moments and end forces. Both ACI and AISC have similar provisions regarding curvature to
compute the magnification factor d for end moments for both sway and non-sway conditions.
Let’s say you have to investigate manually whether you can do anything to make that particular
column pass. By experience, ETABS (I use ETABS mostly. I don’t know about other software)
has some fat stored in its design (i.e. slenderness factor k equals 1.0 when you can reduce it
depending on the end condition of the column, Cm is automatically 1.0, and others).
But before that let’s have a brief code recap and brief background on the application of moment
curvatures.
ACI 318-11 section states that for nonsway moment magnification,
Cm computation. Screen grab from

ACI 318M-08
And in turn, the term Cm will be used to compute d which is the required magnification factor.
Sway magnification computation. Screen grab
from ACI318M-08
Now, is it single or double curvature?
So, let’s have some mental math without putting in some digits in the equations. If the column is
bent in a single curvature, the ratio of M1 over M2 will be added to 0.60. Now in equation (10-
12), the bigger the value of Cm, and the greater the magnification factor d becomes. So how does
d and in turn the design moment be equal to one (remember, d should always be ≥ 1.0 as the
code stipulates!)? The column should be in double curvature where the ratio of M1 over M2 will
be deducted from 0.60
But then again, you can’t always force a column to bend in double curvature unless you’re at
liberty to alter the framing system which is usually you don’t.
So let’s say you have a structural analysis program and you forgot how to figure whether the
bending moment diagram produces a single or double curvature. What now? Simple:
Recall that in theory of structures, the forces, deflected shape, column shear, and bending
moments should look like this:
Single or double curvature based on loadings and bending moment diagrams. Drawn by yours truly.
So for example in ETABS, you will know that the column is bent in single curvature if the
bending moment diagram only have one color and double curvature if the bending moment
diagram has two colors.
With that known, you can now go figure whether that column do pass or whether you have to do
something else to make it work.

Excessive Deflection Countermeasures in SAFE

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Excessive Deflection Countermeasures in SAFE

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Excessive Deflection Counter Measures of Conventional

As mentioned in my previous article, strength requirement is one thing to address and so is

For conventional beam-slab (either one-way or two-way) floor system –

Let me know if you have questions.

Tips in Proportioning The Geometry and Reinforcement of

Remember, the design should be efficient engineering-wise and cost-wise.

Huge Stuff re Architectural & MEPF That We Need to Put

taken from the internet.

And that’s not all.

Now that’s what I call a bad ass structural design engineer.

Did You Know That… Dynamic vs Static Base Shear

Here’s how we do the balancing, ASCE style.

We’re clear are we? Now to summarize:

Initial Scale Factor = g*Ie/R

No further scaling is required

But what is happening to the transfer columns?

still by yours truly

Other mind-boggling questions would be:

I am willing to further learn this concept.

Rotating Spectral Axes

No I’m not referring to any ancient magical weapon of any sort.

The modal mass participating ratios table

So if we summarize the dynamic behavior of the building we can conclude that:

• The first mode is translation along X

Pardon me for digressing a bit.

Tips in Checking Service Crackwidths Using BS 8110-2:1985

Cropped from BS 8110-2:1985

cropped from a spreadsheet

– including this one.

I hope you would bear with this rather lengthy post.

Now let’s get down to business.

Credit goes to the

How does this torsion affect a building anyway?

V = V/A +/- Tr/J; T = V*e

Total eccentricity = e ± Ax*0.05*L

sample model and snapshot by yours truly

For shear along Y. by yours truly

snapshot from ETABS

Finally, let us relate seismic drift and accidental torsion.

Did You Know That… SRSS Orthogonal Direction

SRSS = SquareRoot [SpecX^2 + SpecY^2]

• Vertical component added/subtracted to the selfweight;

As per code provisions, a single direction of action be it X or Y is not enough hence it is

1. The 1+0.30 rule; or the

But why the need to waive the second method?

That ought to keep you covered.

Defining Nonlinear Load Cases in SAFE to Check Uplift

After a long detour, let’s get back to our original topic.

What’s Wrong with a Soil Bearing Pressure in Tension?

Soil in Tens.. what?!

Ok, on a simplistic representation, it looks something like this:

What do I do when I encounter a flying footing?

What will the computer program do when running a non-linear analysis?

Considering the figures below:

After proving the existence of uplift, what now?

Did You Know That… ρmax (rhomax) Computation

Snapshot from ACI318M-11. That ought to convince you!

Understanding M12 (Out-of-Plane Twisting Moments) In

To illustrate, an infinitesimal element below is subjected into out-of-plane bending moments

Let’s get familiar with these principal moments, shall we?

Treating Unbalanced Bending Moments at Columns and

Time to set that imagination again in motion.

Total eccentricity = e ± Ax0.05L