A LInkedIn Discusion On The Correct Stiffness Modifiers For Wall Pier or Spandrel Per ETABS

For the WALLS modelled as a shell element, the stiffness modification factor used is 0.
7
( according to ACI 10.10.4.1). IT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL THE
MODIFICATION FACTORS OR ONLY M11,M22 & M12?
Mirza Asif Ali BaigStructural Engineer at Hashem Contracting and Trading Co. Ltd.
Like (9)
Comment (44)
Follow
Reply Privately
November 12, 2013
Comments
farideh ibrahim, Mirza Asif Ali Baig and 7 others like this
44 comments Jump to most recent comment
ibrahem
ibrahem nasreldin
Structural Engineer at A.S.Company
o
o
o
o
According to CSI , at default local axis settings you should only modify F22 for wall piers and only F11 for wall
spandrels
Like (3)
Reply privately
Flag as inappropriate
November 12, 2013
mehdi mazloum, farideh ibrahim and 1 other like this
Mohamad R
Mohamad R Fatemi
Structural Engineer at Shiraz Municipality
o
o
o
o
The shell element have in plane or membrane and out of plane or bending stiffness. therefore according to ACI
you should modify F22 , F11 for in plane and M22 , M11 for out of plane bending stiffness.
Like (3)
Reply privately
November 13, 2013
mehdi mazloum, Mirza Asif Ali Baig and 1 other like this
Mirza
Mirza Asif Ali Baig
Structural Engineer at Hashem Contracting and Trading Co. Ltd.
so f11,f22 m22 m11 as per ACI 318-11 section 10.4.4.1 should be 0.35 for cracked wall
o
o
o
o
Like
Reply privately
November 13, 2013
Mirza
Mirza Asif Ali Baig
Structural Engineer at Hashem Contracting and Trading Co. Ltd.
o
o
o
o
sorry the ref should be 10.10.4.1

Like
Reply privately
November 13, 2013
ibrahem
ibrahem nasreldin
o
o
o
o
Shear walls resist only in plane moments

refer to this link
https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/etabs/Modeling+cracked+shear-wall+behavior
Like (2)
Reply privately
November 13, 2013
Mohamed AbuShady, Avinash Agrawal like this
Mohamad R
Mohamad R Fatemi
Structural Engineer at Shiraz Municipality
o
o
o
o
Out plane behavior of shear wall same to concrete column under bending moment. for example out plane
bending stiffness of shear wall with 5*0.35 meter dimension equal with bending stiffness of ten column with
0.5*0.3 dimension (around weak axis) and obviously cracked under bending moment. Csi is a company that
produced the software for structural engineers and not the reference for design of structure.
Like
Reply privately
November 13, 2013
Peter
Peter Placzek
Design Director at Meinhardt (VIC)
Top Contributor
I use M11,M22=0.3 to 0.6 (depends on thickness and building height) and M12=0.1 as default.
To spandrels I apply externaly F12=0.3 - this is based on matching behaviour of finely meshed spandrel
compared to coarse meshing as well allowance for shear cracking.
(Note F12 =1 in unmeshed spandrels gives excessive spandrel stiffness)
I than factor F12 externally in zones of walls to release any excessive local stresses as necessary. I believe that
since the weakness of the walls is shear, this is what should be factored not F11 and F22 since you canot factor
for tension without factoring compression as well.
o
o
o
o
The F12 reduction automatically reduces F11 and F22 in the most efficent way.
Like (4)
Reply privately
November 14, 2013
Ravi Arjun, Ghazala Farooq and 2 others like this
Peter
Peter Placzek
Top Contributor
I use M11,M22=0.3 to 0.6 (depends on thickness and building height) and M12=0.1 as default.
To spandrels I apply externaly F12=0.3 - this is based on matching behaviour of finely meshed spandrel
compared to coarse meshing as well allowance for shear cracking.
(Note F12 =1 in unmeshed spandrels gives excessive spandrel stiffness)
I than factor F12 externally in zones of walls to release any excessive local stresses as necessary. I believe that
since the weakness of the walls is shear, this is what should be factored not F11 and F22 since you canot factor
for tension without factoring compression as well.
o
o
o
o
The F12 reduction automatically reduces F11 and F22 in the most efficent way.
Like (1)
Reply privately
November 14, 2013
farideh ibrahim likes this
Ravi
Ravi Arjun
Senior Structural Engineer at Al Shandagha Architects & Engineering Consultants
o
o
o
o
I use f11,f22,f12,m11,m22 & m12 =0.70 in my shear wall design.

Like
Reply privately
November 14, 2013
Faisal
Faisal Habib
Software Support Manager at Computers and Structures Inc
o
o
o
o
In ETABS, shell or area element has two types of stiffnesses i.e. inplane stiffness refers as f11, f22 and f12 and
out-of-plane stiffness refers as m11, m22 and m12. Refer to the Figure 40 of CSi Analysis Reference Manual
which shows the direction of local axes and their corresponding stiffnesses: For shear wall (both piers and
spandrels), the flexural and axial behavior is modified by either f11 or f22 depending on the orientation of the
local axis and the shear behavior is controlled by f12. In column and code terms f11 or f22 would correspond to
modifications of EI or EA and f12 would correspond to modifications to GAshear. The code recommendations
in Section 10.10 of ACI 318 code are related to slenderness effects where flexural deformations govern so they
have recommended modifying EI (corresponding to f11 or f22 for shear walls). There is no recommendation
about reducing the GAshear. You should, however, note that some of our users use modifiers for f12 also, where
they expect deterioration of shear stiffness and want to be realistic in their modeling.The above discussion
applies assuming the local axes 1 and 2 of the shear wall area object are either vertical or horizontal. This is
under user control. When drawing in ETABS the default is to have the 1 axis horizontal and the 2 axis vertical.
This means that the flexural modifier for EI should be applied to f22 for wall piers and to f11 for spandrels. If
you apply the modifier to both f11 and f22 it hardly affects the results.For slabs where bending is always in the
out-of-plane direction, modifiers m11, m22 and m22 are required to model cracking
behavior.Summary:Assuming beams and columns are modeled as frame then the stiffness modifier table is as
follows: ACI ETABS Beams........................................0.35*Ig I22 = I33 =
0.35Columns....................................0.70*Ig I22 = I33 = 0.70Walls-Uncracked.................0.70*Ig modeled as
membrane f11, f22 = 0.70 modeled as shell f11, f22 = 0.70Walls-Cracked......................0.35*Ig similar to
Walls-Uncracked (use modifiers of 0.35)NOTE:Walls are generally not designed for out-of-plane bending to
avoid excessive longitudinal reinforcement. In this case, use a small modifier say 0.1 for m11, m22 and m12 so
numerical instabilities could be avoided. However, use m11, mm2, mm12 = 0.70 (or 0.35) when considering the
out-of-plane bending in wall.Flat Plates
Like (10)
Reply privately
November 15, 2013
Muhammad Kamran Bashir, Suhrid Sharma and 8 others like this
Faisal
Faisal Habib
Please use the following link which provides better formatting: Thanks
o
o
https://wiki.csiamerica.com/x/AoBF
Like (5)
Reply privately
o
o
November 15, 2013
ibrahem nasreldin, farideh ibrahim and 3 others like this
ibrahem
ibrahem nasreldin
o
o
o
o
thanks Mr.Habib
Like
Reply privately
November 16, 2013
Suhrid
Suhrid Sharma
Associate at Meinhardt (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
o
o
o
o
Thanks Faisal for this info. Was looking for this for a long time.
Like (1)
Reply privately
November 17, 2013
Mirza Asif Ali Baig likes this
Peter
Peter Placzek
Top Contributor
Faisal, good to see you get involved.
I see no issue with F11 factor on spandrels, but I reiterate that unless the spandrels are meshed very finely F12
factor is required to get realistic stiffness.
o
o
o
o
I see problem with F22 factor on piers. The F22 reduction softens the walls in compression - the dominat load
and potentially changes load distribution in tall buildings. I think you should factor the column axial stifness to
match.
Like (4)
Reply privately
November 17, 2013
Muhammad Kamran Bashir, Suhrid Sharma and 2 others like this

Suhrid
Suhrid Sharma
o
o
o
o
Fully agree with Peter on wall stiffness modifications. But as long as walls are drawn conventionally, Local 2 is
the vertical axis and thus f22 does not require any qualification as we do not want to change the axial stiffness.
But situation can be different if walls or columns are subject to pure tension during later loading. Also there is
no recommendation to modify the shear stiffness, I am not sure should we modify f12 for spandrels. Maybe
Faisal is better person to clarify.
Like
Reply privately
November 17, 2013
Muhammad Kamran
Muhammad Kamran Bashir
Section Manager (Civil/Structural) at DAR ENGINEERING
o
o
o
o
further to Suhrid sharma's question, in case a pier at a paticular storey is Over stressed in shear, is it a correct
practice to reduce the shear modifier considering that this shear will be re distributed to the other shear walls at
the same storey level?
Like (2)
Reply privately
November 18, 2013
Mohamed AbuShady, ibrahem nasreldin like this
Peter
Peter Placzek
Top Contributor
o
o
o
o
Muhamad, I do it all the time.

For example in a case where you have door offset from centre in the wall leaving narrow pier on one side. If the
pier is very narrow (~1 m) I factor it now automatically even before any results (F12=0.3).
Like (1)
Reply privately
November 18, 2013
ibrahem nasreldin likes this

Muhammad Kamran
Muhammad Kamran Bashir
Section Manager (Civil/Structural) at DAR ENGINEERING
o
o
o
o
Thanks peter. but can F12 be as low as 0.1, if the pier is displayed as O/S against F12=0.3?
i have manually checked some of the piers, displayed as O/S in ETABS, and found them to be within the
allowable 10x phi x sqrt fc' x 0.8xLxd. why is it? am i missing out something?
Like (1)
Reply privately
November 19, 2013
Mohamed AbuShady likes this
Hamid
Hamid Radmard Rahmani
Founder of Behsazan Co.
o
o
o
o
I want to say that I am agree with Peter about considering F22=1 for concrete walls and I want to add some
detail to the discussion.
According to ACI, the stress in the wall should be analysis and check with crack criteria. then you should
estimate the factor you should use to decrease the stiffness of the wall.
Also in CALTRANS code and AASHTO there are very useful graphs that defines the reduction factor to the
reinforcement of the columns and the P and M. ( they are about Columns but useful for walls)
Like
Reply privately
November 19, 2013
Jonathan
Jonathan Wirthlin, SE LEED AP
Engineer, Structural at Coffman Engineers
Muhammed,
I generally agree with Peter, but i would be careful before doing this. It used to be common practice, but post
2006 IBC, i think this became against the code for new buildings. Directly, the code expects you to distribute
forces based on rigidity under the same E (not assuming some of the piers will crack up and have some ratio
lower of E). You can call a pier a secondary structural element and not count on it at all, but then it needs to
meet deflection compatibility requirements and maintain gravity capacity.
Whatever you decide to do I suggest the following...tie the pier closely for ductility, and ensure without a doubt
gravity load carrying capacity will not be lost. Assuming the pier cracks up 70 or 99% is a lot of assumed
damage and the pier will be useless for gravity. Maybe embed steel posts in the pier so the gravity capacity is
there no matter what.
Like (1)
o
o
o
Reply privately
November 19, 2013
Suhrid Sharma likes this
Peter
Peter Placzek
Top Contributor
o
o
o
o
Actually reading the clause in ACI it clearly says Area modification factor =1.0
Unfortunately for piers F22 influnces both Ig which requires factor 0.7 and Area which requires factor 1.0. You
can't do one without the other.
I do see merit in factoring both columns and piers axial stiffness by 0.7 for consistency. After all, when you
consider creep, the long term shortening of walls and columns will actually be closer to 0.7A stiffness than 1.0A
stiffness (0.5 to 0.7A).
Like (2)
Reply privately
November 19, 2013
Mohamed AbuShady, Suhrid Sharma like this
Faisal
Faisal Habib
Hi Peter & Suhrid,
Unlike frame element where axial and flexural stiffnesses are uncoupled, wall axial and inplane bending
stiffness depends on f22. Some users add columns at wall ends which are pin-ended at both ends to compensate
the change in axial stiffness. However, recent papers suggest reducing the axial stiffness as well as bending
stiffness for seismic analysis of walls. You can refer to the following paper for further details on this item:
Effective flexural stiffness for linear seismic analysis of concrete walls by Ahmed M.M. Ibrahim and Perry
Adebar. This paper can be purchased from the following location:
https://article.pubs.nrccnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/RPViewDoc?_handler_=HandleInitialGet&journal=cjce&volume=31&calyLang=eng&article
File=l04-014.pdf&secure=true
o
o
o
Spandrels where flexural bending governs i.e. span/depth ratio > 2, modifying f12 may not provide significant
difference. However, spandrels with span/depth 2 have shear deformation and using a shear modifier may
yield significant difference. In both cases, spandrel meshing is recommended to capture the double curvature
bending in spandrels.
Like (4)
Reply privately
November 19, 2013

Kirankumar K.L, Suhrid Sharma and 2 others like this
Jonathan
o
o
o
o
Good point Faisal.I suppose i could sum up my previous comment by saying that I don't believe a typical static
or rspectra new building design should try to guess and assume inelastic behavior of shear walls to design
reinforcement. You should take an assumed cracked section modifier globally and design some piers as
secondary members if you'd like.If you are doing an in-depth model and truly designing considering inelastic
behavior of all elements that is different and ok. Of course at this point you should actually calculate what
stiffness modifiers to use. See Faisal's paper.
Like (2)
Reply privately
November 19, 2013
Mohamed AbuShady, Seifeldin Marzouk like this
Peter
Peter Placzek
Top Contributor
o
o
o
o
Faisal,
for practicing engineer it is important to have as simple model as possible.
Adding columns to offset pier area stifness reduction is just cazy.
Spandrel meshing also complicates things - extends run times and causes instablities, makes changes more
difficult, makes spandrel labels illegible........
As you say for deep spandrels the K12 makes no differance, threfore it does no harm either.
Deep spandrels can also handle the loads.
For the shalow spandrels however it achieves the right result (at least one of the right results) without the
onerous meshing. The exact K12 varies from 1 to 0.3 depending on the span/depth ratio - 0.3 is the best
conservative shot.
But of course line object is always better option for shallow spandrels.
Like (2)
Reply privately
November 20, 2013
Seifeldin Marzouk, Kirankumar K.L like this
Jonathan
o
o
o
o
Peter, i would suggest spandrel meshing at a few conditions in the building to check results and behavior of the
other modeling. I try to pick at least 3 locations to finely mesh with each model. (that way run times stay
reasonable).
Like
Reply privately
November 20, 2013
Jonathan
o
o
o
o
Peter, i would suggest spandrel meshing at a few conditions in the building to check results and behavior of the
other modeling. I try to pick at least 3 locations to finely mesh with each model. (that way run times stay
reasonable).
Like
Reply privately
November 20, 2013
Faisal
Faisal Habib
Peter, I totally agree with you that adding additional column for compensating the axial stiffness is just a crazy
idea (it was just an observation instead of recommendation). I do not think that meshing spandrel should cause
instabilities. The shear stiffness modifier (f12 or K12) ranges differently depending on shear deformation vs.
axial deformation. FEMA 356 provides some guidelines for using bending and shear modifiers.
o
o
o
o
Jonathan, changing stiffness would cause larger secondary moment due to P-delta analysis since displacement
increase due to reduce stiffness.
Like (2)
Reply privately
November 20, 2013
Mohamed AbuShady, Suhrid Sharma like this
Peter
Peter Placzek
Top Contributor
10
Jonathan, Faisal,
I have done extensive testing (as you Jonathan suggested) with meshing for generic lobby and single door
headers with different span to depth ratios. I just dug my work out - I have not looked at for some time.
Details:
The test models are one spandrel between two equal walls - it is a H shape structure. The walls are hinged at
base and load is applied at top. The changes to sway at top of the walls is the measure of the spandrel stiffness.
Based on the test I arrived at following conclusions:
For unmeshed spandrel use F12 as follows
1<L/d<3.5...... F12=0.44-0.09L/d
L/d<1 ..... F12=1
for L/d>3.5 use line spandrels
Over time I just simplified it to F12=0.3 and I mesh it to 2-3 segments. It is a compromise without having to
calculate L/d's. If I have any "O/S" I will reduce the offending spandrels further to as low as 0.1.
But definitely I use line spandrels for L/d>3.5.
o
o
o
o
By the way a spandrel of L/d=1.88 meshed to 18 square elements will still loose 15% of stiffness when meshed
to 288 elements. Meshed to 12 elements it will gain 15% stiffness.
Like (1)
Reply privately
November 20, 2013
Ghazala Farooq likes this
Jonathan
o
o
o
o
Can you point to where in the IBC it allows you to change your individual pier/spandrel stiffnesses when O/S'd?
How do you justify this per code for a standard analysis?
Like (1)
Reply privately
November 20, 2013
ibrahem nasreldin likes this
Faisal
Faisal Habib
Peter,
I cannot put image or model file using this group so I will email the details on modeling spandrels using
ETABS. I will add the info to CSi Wiki so everybody can see the details and will post the link in this group.
11
o
o
o
o
Like (2)
Reply privately
November 20, 2013
Mohamed AbuShady, Seifeldin Marzouk like this
Jonathan
o
o
o
o
Thanks Faisal!
Like
Reply privately
November 20, 2013
Suhrid
Suhrid Sharma
o
o
o
o
Thanks Faisal for active participation and please provide link once you upload spandrel modeling tips. Many
engineers avoid meshing walls or spandrels citing run-time issue but non-meshed or coarsely meshed structure
would behave as if it is stiffer than it is actually. Lateral deformations/drifts increase with finer meshing.
ETABS has 1 m as the default value for defining largest mesh size. Would like to ask Faisal what is the
convergence guidance for sizing mesh?
Like (1)
Reply privately
November 20, 2013
Seifeldin Marzouk likes this
Hormoz
Hormoz Amirzadeh Shams
Structural Engineer
Hi dear colleagues
It seems I have missed a challenging discussion. Reading from top comment to down, it could be summarized
as:
- Flexural stiffness should be reduced to 0.7/0.35 based on fr, as code recommendation
- If you have modeled the wall as membrane, then just modification of F22 is enough
(default local axis) but if it has been modeled as shell element, then out of plane
modifications may be required to avoid numerical instabilities as Faisal recommended.
The same coefficient should be applied to attached cloumns
- Certainly walls need to be meshed otherwise the connection of wall and foundation
12
would be only at two ends, but be careful about aspect ratio of meshed elements,
especially in shell elements.
o
o
o
o
But about shear modification factors, ACI has no recommendation and we should be careful about selecting a
coefficient. Just change of F12 to overcome O/S situation seems not to be a valid modeling and it should be on a
basis like fr for flexure and again as Faisal recommended the shear stiffness modifier (f12 or K12) ranges
differently depending on shear deformation vs. axial deformation. FEMA 356 provides some guidelines for
using bending and shear modifiers.
Like
Reply privately
November 21, 2013
Peter
Peter Placzek
Top Contributor
Some of you express concerns about applying stiffness reduction factors to reduce OS problems. I don't.
You are all kidding yourselves if you believe that your elastic ETABS model gives you accurate load
distribution through the building for your ultimate load combinations.
After all, your model is based on gross concrete sections with blanket factor stiffness reduction for cracking. It
ignores variation of cracking according to stress. It also ignores long term effects such as creep and shrinkage.
Most importantly it ignores post linear behavior close the limit which s NOT elastic.
What you do get from ETABS elastic analysis is one of many possible and consistent load paths.
By applying stiffness factors you are adjusting/redistributing this load path. This different load path is just as
valid as any other load path (within reason).
Applying large stiffness reductions in high stress areas is actually how the structure works in reality. Any
overstressed zones will experience creep, cracking and reinforcing yield that will lead to redistribution of the
high stresses to other building elements (and there must be other elements available).
But dont think that this stiffness factor is a magic bullet. Sometimes no amount redistribution works and there
is no option but to increase the offending element size.
o
o
o
o
Performance based analysis is the best available alternative to elastic analysis but I think it is still too onerous to
be very practical.
Like (2)
Reply privately
November 21, 2013
Seifeldin Marzouk, Yiannis Pericleous like this
Jonathan
13
Peter:
I understand that you are providing some sort of hybrid between static code design and performance based
design based on your experience. I agree that if done properly varying stiffness factors would provide more
accurate behavior than static code.
However, I never deviate from code, even if i'm right. I want a common standard to hang my hat in a courtroom
if it comes to it. (The code is also law). Perhaps my biggest reason for strictly following code (besides liability)
is that often where i see people deviate from code, they end up wrong. My comments were a genuine curiosity
as to whether the code recognizes or allows varying stiffness reduction factors for static design. That is all.
I will say that the provisions for performance based design exist to allow us to model more accurately for better
results. However, this is still governed by rules and often a peer review. Alternatively a static approach with
basic assumptions will achieve a conservative result. Achieving better results by performance based design,
under static linear design, is kind of taking the best of both worlds, and i believe makes you less conservative
than a standard design.
o
o
o
o
Consider as an example, considering stucco stiffness, or gypsum interior partitions in a wood building would
give you a more accurate behavior. The walls do exist and do resist shear, but the code does not allow it under
standard analysis. Being more accurate will give you better results. If you want to do this and follow code i
would suggest designing as full performance based non-linear design per the code.
Like
Reply privately
November 22, 2013
Hormoz
Hormoz Amirzadeh Shams
Structural Engineer
Jonathan, Codes are not Bible although they are LAW. There are some cases that are not covered by codes
and beside that they are changing by time.
While axial compression load helps shear resistance of shear walls but in case of wall with opening like what
Peter has mentioned, engineering judgment leads to specifying a modification factor to shear stiffness of wall.
In addition, in FEMA 356, a modification factor is considered for shear stiffness equal to 0.4EcA. This factor is
near to what Peter applies as his judgment/experiment. As I mentioned, I just wanted to find a relation between
factor and stress condition like what code proposed for flexural stiffness.
o Like
o Reply privately
o Flag as inappropriate
o November 25, 2013
Victor
Victor Aguilar Vidal
Ingeniero Civil / Estructuras / Calculista
it is a very interesting discussion. Is it possible to simulate the non linear behavior in a linear elastic model? with
factors?.
o Like
o Reply privately
14
o
o
December 8, 2013
Nadim
Nadim Ayche, P.E.
Project Manager at L. A. Fuess Partners
On a side note, the factors in ACI are intended for use when checking frame or wall out of plane slenderness. It
is not intended for all cases. in the case of shearwall, you are expected to come up with your own reduction
factors. You may use the ACI ones, but know that it is a choice you're making.
o Like
o Reply privately
o 10 months ago
Mohamed
Mohamed AbuShady
Head of Structural Design Department at Fad For Contracting & Trading Co.
very useful discussion,thanks for all contributors.
o Like (1)
o Reply privately
o 1 month ago
Seifeldin Marzouk likes this
Seifeldin
Seifeldin Marzouk
Chief Structural engineer at Arch Centre Consulting Engineers
Peter
You mentioned that (and there must be other elements available) while you stated that you put M12=0.1 as
default in this case which element will resist torsion ?
o Like
o Reply privately
o 26 days ago
Seifeldin
Seifeldin Marzouk
15
Peter
You mentioned that :
Any overstressed zones will experience creep, cracking and reinforcing yield that will lead to redistribution of
the high stresses to other building elements (and there must be other elements available).
while you stated that you put M12=0.1 as default in this case which element will resist torsion ?
o Like
o Reply privately
o 26 days ago
Seifeldin
Seifeldin Marzouk
Peter
o Like
o Reply privately
o 26 days ago
o
o
o
o
while you stated that you put M12=0.1 as default in this case which element will resist torsion ?
Like
Reply privately
26 days ago
Seifeldin
Seifeldin Marzouk
o
o
o
o
Peter
Like
Reply privately
26 days ago
Seifeldin
Seifeldin Marzouk
16
o
o
o
o
Excuse me peter may be I misunderstand but I read this sentence from the beginning of your first comment (I
use M11,M22=0.3 to 0.6 ((depends on thickness and building height) and M12=0.1 as default. ))..
Regardes
Like
Reply privately
26 days ago
Muhammad
Muhammad Ahsun
Structural Engineer
Ultimate Condition Stiffness Factors:
Wall Pier (Uncracked) : f11 = 1.00, f22 = f12 = m11 = m22 = m12 = 0.70
Wall Pier (Cracked) : f11 = 1.00, f22 = f12 = m11 = m22 = m12 = 0.35
Wall Spandrel : f22 = 1.00, f11 = f12 = m11 = m22 = m12 = 0.35
Retaining Wall : f11 = 1.00, f22 = f12 = m11 = m22 = m12 = 0.10
Service Condition Stiffness Factors:
where
f11, f22, f12 are in-plane bending
m11, m22, m12 are out of plane bending.
J is Torsional Constant
Walls are generally not designed for out-of-plane bending to avoid excessive longitudinal reinforcement. In this
case, use a small modifier say 0.1 for m11, m22 and m12 so numerical instabilities could be avoided. However,
use m11, mm2, mm12 = 0.70 (or 0.35) when considering the out-of-plane bending in wall.
o
o
o
o
Above values are based on Csi Recommendations and ACI 318-11 Clause 10.10.4.1 for Ultimate Condition and
(Clause 10.10.4.1 x 1.43) for Service Condition .
Like
Reply privately
2 days ago
Seifeldin
Seifeldin Marzouk
o
o
Excuse me peter may be I misunderstand but I read this sentence from the beginning of your first comment (I
use M11,M22=0.3 to 0.6 ((depends on thickness and building height) and M12=0.1 as default. ))..
Regardes
Like
Reply privately
17
o
o
26 days ago
Muhammad
Muhammad Ahsun
Structural Engineer
Ultimate Condition Stiffness Factors:
Service Condition Stiffness Factors:
where
f11, f22, f12 are in-plane bending
m11, m22, m12 are out of plane bending.
J is Torsional Constant
Walls are generally not designed for out-of-plane bending to avoid excessive longitudinal reinforcement. In this
case, use a small modifier say 0.1 for m11, m22 and m12 so numerical instabilities could be avoided. However,
use m11, mm2, mm12 = 0.70 (or 0.35) when considering the out-of-plane bending in wall.
o
o
o
o
Above values are based on Csi Recommendations and ACI 318-11 Clause 10.10.4.1 for Ultimate Condition and
(Clause 10.10.4.1 x 1.43) for Service Condition .
Like
Reply privately
2 days ago
Luisito Sta. Ines, M. ASCE

Sr. Civil / Structural Design Engineer
WHAT is all these brouhaha on stiffness modifiers? ref ACI 318 Cl.10.10.4.1 (I'm using the 2011 version); let
me just remind everyone in this forum that the provision of 10.10.4.1 (stipulating stiffness modifiers for
compression elements under flexure or axial load or both applies ONLY for elastic second-order analysis meaning if you are doing only elastic first -order analysis (i.e., no P-delta forces), you do not need to apply such
modifiers (see the earlier part of 10.10 to find out when you can neglect slenderness effects. Also, in the
commentary R10.10.1, it says "Second-order effects in many structures are negligible." meaning one must really
put good judgment in using second-order analysis. But if one insists on using elastic second-order analysis
(including non-linear second-order), he MUST comply with Cl.10.10.2.1 where it says the second-order effects
must not exceed 1.4 times the moment due to first-order effects. In other words, as per the corresponding
commentary thereto, the stability index Q must not exceed 0.2 which is equal to a secondary-to-primary moment
ratio of 1.25. Btw, if you are doing non-linear second-order analysis, the stiffness modifier recommended by
18
ACI 318 is 0.8 (see last sentence of R10.10.3) and not those found in 10.10.4.1. I hope I have clarified the
correct use of stiffness modifiers per the latest version of ACI 318. Cheers to all!
o Delete
o 3 days ago
Haytham
Haytham Mohamad
Structural design engineer at CDEC
Thanks guys for this interesting discussion
o Like
o Reply privately
o 2 days ago
19

A LInkedIn Discusion On The Correct Stiffness Modifiers For Wall Pier or Spandrel Per ETABS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A LInkedIn Discusion On The Correct Stiffness Modifiers For Wall Pier or Spandrel Per ETABS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For the WALLS modelled as a shell element, the stiffness modification factor used is 0.

sorry the ref should be 10.10.4.1

Shear walls resist only in plane moments

I use f11,f22,f12,m11,m22 & m12 =0.70 in my shear wall design.

Muhamad, I do it all the time.

November 19, 2013

Engineer, Structural at Coffman Engineers

Luisito Sta. Ines, M. ASCE

You might also like