Once selected UBC 97 and specified top and bottom storey etabs will automatically take Cp values into consideration . But u can always overwrite them .
Thank you very much sir...You helped a lot for my final year engineering project 😊 There is detailing option is missing on etabs 2017, Can we trust the CSI detailer as it is new?
Sir, if we change the number of longitudinal reinforcement in 2 and 3 directions will affects the reinforcement area. These options are below the clear cover option in column define properties.
@@EngineeringLearningPlatform I did research in this area and I found something that. We have to change them because bars of the size there define the nominal cover . Like we assume in our manual calculation of axial loading and biaxial bending of column. If that remain to 20 mm bars then in small size column it give unnecessary large reinforcement area. Also it affect the criteria of selecting equal bars on two sides or four sides. But I can't understand that why it affect result when we increase the number of bars. You check this by yourself . Make 2 same structure but change only the number of longitudinal bars in 2 and 3 direction in column definition. You will notice diferrence in reinforcement area. I want to talk more in this topic . I hope u reply.
Doesn't matter, 0.01 is already making it 10% of it's capacity, 0.001 will be using only 1% . Both can be used . Even 0.1 can be used . While ACI recommendation for compatibility torsion is 0.001 conservatively . It's now your choice how much conservative you want to be . You can try using both and see no or minor difference
Beam's compatibility torsion is shared by slab thats is why we reduce that in internal beams, but not in external beams . While columns can't ignore torsion as no other sharing element, and why would a Structural Engineer not want column to be designed for forces coming to it . It doesn't make sense . Further more see ACI chapter 10, it mentions torsion modifiers are only applicable to beams .
Because its upto us whether we want beam to be designed for torsion or not . Since i took 0.001 so it makes beam torsionally flexible i.e the slab will absorb all torsion and beam will not have additional steel for torsion. Its choice of designer
@@EngineeringLearningPlatform Sir, we usually see the beam fail in torsion while using modifier 1.0 or 0.35, is it right to say the slab will take all the torsional moment generated? I have been having problems on the torsion issue in beams which leads to increase in size and issuance of higher grade of concrete to it
@@EngineeringLearningPlatform does it mean we input 0.25 for slab modifier or 1.0? Since slab will be stiffer and ETABs will design the slab accordingly, and we can also provide torsional reinforcements in slabs
Actually in slab there is no comcept of torsion, it is a moment which is transferred to the beam from slab and then it becomes torsion for beam, and yes we reduce slab's stiffness to 0.25 for sake of code to incorporate cracked moment of inertia
THANKS FOR MAKING A LECTURE. ITS FULL OF KNOWLEDGE. ITS VERY HELPFUL.
See description for next parts
Very informative etabs tutorials for building design
Hi, Did you applied wall load during this tutorial?
Thank you very much for your helpful tutorial . But commanding so quick.
See description for next part of this video
4:16, Shear wall properties modifier is 0.5? And why only in one direction?
Any reply to this?
Do we not change the strength reduction factors for UBC 97 while using ACI-08 ? Wont they be different ?
UBC 97 is highly conservative
Nice, but it seems that you did not assign the wind coefficients Cp to get the wind load, did you?
Once selected UBC 97 and specified top and bottom storey etabs will automatically take Cp values into consideration . But u can always overwrite them .
Thank you very much sir...You helped a lot for my final year engineering project 😊
There is detailing option is missing on etabs 2017, Can we trust the CSI detailer as it is new?
Go for 2016
please explain about the auto sequence loading concept in one video.how to do that auto sequence analysis?
Sir when i run analysis, analysis will complete but model didn't get locked. Also etabs not showing deformed shape. What is reason please help.
Corrupt model or check modal analysis and see if it run
@@EngineeringLearningPlatform i made a new model as you did.
Sir, if we change the number of longitudinal reinforcement in 2 and 3 directions will affects the reinforcement area. These options are below the clear cover option in column define properties.
For slab design?
@@EngineeringLearningPlatform no in the column design
@@gaganpatidar9907 Let it remain default
@@EngineeringLearningPlatform I did research in this area and I found something that. We have to change them because bars of the size there define the nominal cover . Like we assume in our manual calculation of axial loading and biaxial bending of column. If that remain to 20 mm bars then in small size column it give unnecessary large reinforcement area. Also it affect the criteria of selecting equal bars on two sides or four sides. But I can't understand that why it affect result when we increase the number of bars. You check this by yourself . Make 2 same structure but change only the number of longitudinal bars in 2 and 3 direction in column definition. You will notice diferrence in reinforcement area. I want to talk more in this topic . I hope u reply.
@@gaganpatidar9907 I know . You should study the moment interaction curves of columns . And suggested is to keep uniform rebar distribution .
Torsional constant should be 0.01 or 0.001? Please cross check.
Doesn't matter, 0.01 is already making it 10% of it's capacity, 0.001 will be using only 1% . Both can be used . Even 0.1 can be used . While ACI recommendation for compatibility torsion is 0.001 conservatively . It's now your choice how much conservative you want to be . You can try using both and see no or minor difference
@@EngineeringLearningPlatform Alright Cool. And why don't use reduce torsion value for column as well? We reduce it for beams only?
Beam's compatibility torsion is shared by slab thats is why we reduce that in internal beams, but not in external beams . While columns can't ignore torsion as no other sharing element, and why would a Structural Engineer not want column to be designed for forces coming to it . It doesn't make sense . Further more see ACI chapter 10, it mentions torsion modifiers are only applicable to beams .
Sir, why stiffness modifier for Beam in torsion is 0.001? Could you explain?
Because its upto us whether we want beam to be designed for torsion or not . Since i took 0.001 so it makes beam torsionally flexible i.e the slab will absorb all torsion and beam will not have additional steel for torsion. Its choice of designer
@@EngineeringLearningPlatform Sir, we usually see the beam fail in torsion while using modifier 1.0 or 0.35, is it right to say the slab will take all the torsional moment generated? I have been having problems on the torsion issue in beams which leads to increase in size and issuance of higher grade of concrete to it
Yes the slab will be designed stiffer and you'll see it would stop failing the beam then .
@@EngineeringLearningPlatform does it mean we input 0.25 for slab modifier or 1.0? Since slab will be stiffer and ETABs will design the slab accordingly, and we can also provide torsional reinforcements in slabs
Actually in slab there is no comcept of torsion, it is a moment which is transferred to the beam from slab and then it becomes torsion for beam, and yes we reduce slab's stiffness to 0.25 for sake of code to incorporate cracked moment of inertia
Response Spectrum ?
Covered here:
www.udemy.com/course/etabs-rcc/?referralCode=4F571121E8073D773BE7
Can I get this Etabs file?
It's long lost in time.
Hey sir, the excel is not free?
A very small charge for efforts
Are you from Pakistan?
Not currently.
@@EngineeringLearningPlatform where are you from?
@@Engrwaleed555 Please contact our facebook page "Engineering Learning Platform" for queries