Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Modeling cracked behavior of shear walls in ETABS

Flexural and axial behaviors for shell wall elements can be modified in ETABS by using either f11 or f22 property modifiers, depending on the orientation of your local axes. The shear behavior is controlled by f12 property modifier. The terms f11 or f22 would correspond to modifications of EI or EA and f12 would correspond to modifications to GA shear. The code recommendations in ACI318-05, Section 10.11 are related to slenderness effects where flexural deformations govern so the code recommends modifying EI (corresponding to f11 or f22 for shear walls). Furthermore, ACI318-08 Section 8.8 includes recommendations for members properties modification factors to be used for lateral loads analysis. There is no recommendation for reducing the GA shear. Modifiers for f12 can be used where deterioration of shear stiffness is expected. The above discussion applies when the local axes 1 and 2 of the shear wall area object are either vertical or horizontal. This is under user control. When drawing walls in ETABS, the default is to have the 1 axis horizontal and the 2 axis vertical. This means that the flexural modifier for EI should be applied to f22 for wall piers and to f11 for spandrels. The designer should keep in mind the following: If the factored moments and shears from an analysis based on the moment of inertia of a wall, taken equal to 0.70Ig, indicate that the wall will crack in flexure, based on the modulus of rupture (fr=0.62*sqrt(f'c)), the analysis should be repeated with I =0.35Ig in those stories where cracking is predicted using factored loads.

02-14-2011, 12:55 PM dear hussein, do u mean that we should modify only the f11 or only the f22 or both. thanksss

02-15-2011, 12:30 AM Dear robertoo, We can summarize the followings: 1. For shell elements pier-shear walls with default orientation of local axes, the main modifier affects directly on flexural stiffness "EI" is "f22". 2. For shell elements spandrel- beam with default orientation of local axes, the main modifier affects directly on flexural stiffness "EI" is "f11". ACI318-08 code declared in its commentary R.8.8.2 that the modulus of shear modulus may be taken as 0.4Ec, so the shear stiffness modifiers "f12" could be reduced as well.

In general, we can use the following stiffness modifiers for pier-shear walls: f11=1, and f22=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.7 for un-cracked walls. f11=1, and f22=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.35 for cracked walls. For spandrel shell-modeled beams: f22=1, and f11=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.35 For shell-modeled deep wall spandrel-outriggers under high level of horizontal and vertical stresses: f11=f22=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.35 Sometimes, the designer may go lower than those values of stiffness modifiers mentioned in code. This decision depends on designer's judgement on the degree of cracking and the expected degradation in element's stiffness under the cyclic loading and level of developed stresses. It is good to highlight the followings: 1. Against the expected, ACI318-08 code doesn't discuss the issue of reducing the flexural stiffness modifier under chapter "21" adopted for Earthquake Resistance Structures, even though this issue is quite related to the ductility and design of structures under the attack of earthquake waves. However ACI code discuss this issue under the clause of slenderness effect in compression members, and to be more specific, when it talks about the design of long/slender columns which are extremely affected by the second order displacement/moment result from lateral load such wind & earthquake load. In this regard: it is so clear that reducing the flexural stiffness will lead to increase the lateral displacement caused by lateral load and then increasing the second order moment effect "P-Delta" called-phenomena. 2. Reducing the flexural stiffness affects directly on structure stability index (equation 10-10 in ACI318-08). 3. Ductility of structure may measure by the degree of flexural cracking takes place under the reversal/cyclic seismic load. These cracks grow up from cycle to the other result in degradation in elements stiffness. And for high-ductile special structures the degree of degradation quite differs from this observed for low-ductile structures. However ACI code releases up to 2005 edition have no such distinction in the value of stiffness modifiers between special, intermediate and ordinary structures, whereas the latest edition ACI318-08 start show such difference as shown on equations 10-8 & 10-9.