I wish to know what is the correct method to model RCC slab rigidity in XZ (Horizontal) plane for

distribution of horizontal shear at floor levels due to earthquake or wind or temperature.

STAAD give command MASTER-SLAVE, by virtue of which, horizontal displacement of all joints at one
particular plane (say XZ plane) can be equalised to one joint, thereby RCC slab rigidity is incorporated in
Seismic analysis/ Lateral Load Analysis. In this method, the displacement of all joints is made equal at
one floor level and distribution of horizontal load between frame is in proportion of the rigidity of the
frames as well as inter-se horizontal distance of resisting frames.

However, i have observed, many structural design consultants dont use MASTER SLAVE command, giving
argument that results are too conservative and reinf in columns come very high.

So, these consultants have devised a new method. They, increase the stiffness of beam in Z direction
infinately i.e. Iyy of beam is made almost 4000 times actual stiffness of beam. They say, this way the
rigidity of RCC slab is correctly modelled in the space frame analysis. I however, disagree with this
argument.

This is because, in moment distribution analysis of individual frames, the moments owing to horizontal
load (EQ/Wind) are absorbed by High I value beams and columns attract very little BM. Hence I
observed, even in a 28 storey Building with column size 1000*300mm and M40 grade concrete, max.
reinf. required from founation to 28th storey is less than 0.8%. This appears to be highly incorrect.

Many of these designers even argue that other leading consultants as well as IIT faculty is also adopting
similar method of increasing Iy value of RCC beams infinately.

I want my learnt friends and seniors to clarify this aspect and specifically comment if it is correct to
make Iy value of RCC beams infinite. If not infinite, what can be reasonable value of Iy of beam to
account for RCC slab rigidity in horizontal plane ?

. What you have stated is a fact or hearsay? In fact design is carried out by staad for Mz. Iy will affect My
which is not considered in the design of beam. I fail to visualise as to why very high Iy will reduce the
column reinforcement substantially unless you interfere/disturb Iz of the beam.

If what you say is correct which I am unable to buy, then also it is against the principle of design of
strong column and weak beam for the EQ resistant structure.

I request you to re- check with the designers and obtain a convincing reply from them and not an
arbitrary and non engineering one. I wish an early response from you because the matter posted by you
is very interesting.

I would request other members to post their views on the points raised by Sri Garg.
I do agree that many engineers while doing seismic analysis do not consider the stiffness of the slab. This
will definitely bring a quantum change in the amount of steel reinforcement.

Also as Er. Pradeep Garg has pointed out, certain designers increase the moment of inertia of the
beams.

My question on this is, even if they increase moment of inertia of the beam, how does it incorporate the
stiffness of the slab.

Another way that would be more reasonable but time taking would be to model the slab as a plate
element with slab thickness and material properties that of concrete except that the density should be
kept almost nil. Thereafter the floor load can be applied in Dead load and Live load command as is being
previously done.

The only problem I see in this method is that it is more time taking than the normal process.

Moreover I think Master Slave command is very helpful in achieving this behaviour when modelling in
staad.

But master slave does not reduce the column reinforcement from 2% to 0.8%. The reduction is hardly
5% in the output of column reinforcement..

I differ with your view point that upon using master slave command the reinforcement % reduces in
columns.

The example I had done saw just the reverse i.e. in most columns the reinforcement percentage
increased drastically. I did not check it in terms of percentage hence will not be able to share that part of
the data with you.

Will you please share whether the analysis and design done by you was for static or dynamic loading?

The analysis was being done for dynamic loading through response spectrum method i.e. modal
analysis.

Even I thought initially that the reinforcement percentage should be more than that when done using
master slave command, but the results showed otherwise.

Hence I drew the conclusion that when using the master slave command we are simulating / intending
to make the structure more stiff at slab levels as all columns will act jointly, and as more stiff the
structure, it will attract greater force. More force relates to more reinforcement required.

Please correct me If I am wrong in my thinking. Even I am a learner.

Master slave have the following restrictions:

Restrictions
l
Solid elements may not be connected to slave joints.
l
Master joints may not be master or slaves in another entry.
l
Slave joints may not be master or slaves in another entry.
l
Slave directions at joints may not be supported directions or have
displacements imposed.

l
Master and/or slave joints may not be inclined supports.
l
The master / slave specification is only intended for linear static and
dynamic analysis.

l
Multilinear springs are not permitted.

Please ensure compliance of the above terms. If still the discrepancy continues, please
post a small sample model.

Iam enclosing two sample files, one with master slave and other without master slave.
I am not finding that output of rigid file is higher than the non rigid file. In your case the reason
may be something different. Please examine and post the comments.

sharma test.rar
Description:
Filename: sharma test.rar
Filesize: 1.93 KB Download
Downloaded: 125 Time(s)
I have just seen your message and checked your Staad files.

On observing your program, I saw there is no seismic loading in either program.

Without any lateral force there is no lateral sway and hence no extra force due to seismic activity.
Moreover master slave command is redundant for gravity loading.

Hence no increase in steel.

Please correct the program accordingly and then check the results.

If there still exits a problem then we will definitely work towards getting a solution.
In order to make the sample file simpler, I have applied horizontal load in one direction at nodes. This
will simulate the static EQ load.
Using software tricks & gimmick to reduce rebars in columns is not right at all. The column dimensions
and the rebars have to be designed to sustain the actions (axial loads, BMs & shears) actually imposed
on them. I think this is another example of using software without understanding the basics of structural
response.

Indrajit Barua.
I differ with your view point that upon using master slave command the reinforcement % reduces in
columns.

The example I had done saw just the reverse i.e. in most columns the reinforcement percentage
increased drastically. I did not check it in terms of percentage hence will not be able to share that part of
the data with you.

Dear Sureshji,

I went through your program. I have used your program and made some changes in it and modified it
slightly.

One program is without the master slave command and the other with master slave command.

While conducting the analysis, I realised a certain key point which we were missing.

When I wrote the program with out the master slave command, I obtained a base shear from the
dynamic analysis through staad. This was higher than the base shear obtained from static analysis i.e
base shear calculated manually.

Hence as per the necessary clause in IS1893(Part 1):2002, I applied the necessary corrections in the
factor and made the dynamic base shear equal to that obtained from manual method.

Now after introducing the master slave command in the program, I observed that the dynamic base
shear changed again.

Again I made the corrections to get the base shear equal to that obtained from the manual method.

After correcting the base shear I redesigned the columns and obtained the column steel.

The important point to note here is that yes upon applying master slave command the column steel
reduces due to change in the base shear force. But when we make the dynamic base shear equal to the
one obtained manually as per the clause in IS1893(Part 1):2002, then in that case the column steel
increases.

The results are for you to see for yourself.

 STAAD PROGRAMS.rar
Description:
Filename: STAAD PROGRAMS.rar
Filesize: 19.39 KB Download
Downloaded: 69 Time(s)

I am yet to see the file. What I will tell you that compare the dynamic analysis (with master slave) with
dynamic analysis (without master slave). Then only you can get the correct picture. Do not apply two
different scales to outwit the master slave. Dynamic analysis is completely different from static analysis.
Even with the ACC factor that you put in dynamic analysis based on the static analysis is not going to
give the same output for dynamic analysis as that for static analysis because of the different method of
combination i.e.CQC or SRSS etc in dynamic analysis which are not there in case of static analysis.

If the master slave would give higher reinfocement then its very purpose would be lost. It can not be.

Dear Sureshji,

I have done what you suggested and this time I noticed the results.

When no master slave command was given we obtained a certain base shear through dynamic analysis.

Again the program was run, this time after introduction of the master slave command.

I noticed that the base shear with master slave command was higher in both x and z directions when
compared to the base shear without the master slave command.

The most probable reasoning I could think of is that we are introducing slab rigidity thereby increasing
the stiffness at the respective slab levels.

Now we already know that more stiff a member, greater force it will attract. Hence the increase in Base
Shear.

Again for more base shear, higher percentage of steel will be required to cater to the vertical bending of
columns. Hence this explains the increase in percentage in steel.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

You appear to be correct. Let this aspect be examined by others too.

After re looking into the file posted by you I observe that dynamic base shear generated by staad is not
correct because your input is wrong. The base shear in no case can be more than 8% of the seismic mass
i.e. DL and LL. In this case it is 100% of the seismic mass because you have applied much more load as
joint load which are not part of seismic mass than the seismic mass. In a sample generated by me I have
tested reinforcement with master slave is about 10% lower than that without master slave. You can
verify by giving the take off command.

Dear Sureshji,

Please see the excel file attached titled 'Seismic Weight'. The seismic weight of the structure which is
applied at the respective joints in total is equal to 3630.68KN.

I have calculated the Ah to be equal to 0.09 for the parameters I chose. This factor may be different for
your choice of parameters, but the value will not vary too much.

If you see the staad output files, you will observed that the base shear calculated in x and z directions is
326.76KN which is what we obtain when we multiply my Ah value with the seismic weight I've obtained
from staad.

Please note that I have changed the column sizes so that I get the quantity of steel, since in the
dimensions you had mentioned earlier, the section was not enough so we would not be able to
understand the difference clearly.

Also another difference from your program is that you had applied tow joint loads, one in LOAD 1 and
the other in LOAD 2, but while giving the repeat command you had only considered LOAD 2. In my case I
added the total joint loads and mentioned it under a single LOAD 3 DL and took the entire value while
calculating the seismic weight using combination 1.0(DL+0.5LL).

Maybe this is the reason that can be attributed to the difference in your and my program.

If you have any other queries, please feel free to discuss.

Dear Nitin
I observe the follwing defects.
i) You have taken the X factor and Z factor as 0.37622. The factor should be Z/2xI/R. In no case the
above factor can be more than 0.06 as per Indian code. How have you arrived at the above factor?
ii) In my case I had applied the horizontal load in DL case to apply pseudo seismic force without actually
generating the seismic force to save time and labour. In your case You have actually generated seismic
force. Hence horizontal force from the DL case must be omitted. In combination with seismic load
there is no scope for any horizontal load other than EQ load.
iii) As you have not put in DL and LL in Spectrum case I suppose the joint load put there in by you is the
substitute for the same obtained separately.
iv) You see; your base shear output by the staad is about 3300 KN, more or less equal to the sum of Fx
or Fy individually which have been input for generating base shear.It is so because X and Z factors are
are nearly 6 times higher than the usual one. When the base shear is more 8% Of DL and LL, the reason
thereof must be investigated.

My comments are based on IS 1893. I have converted your parameters in the file posted in the forum to
conform to IS 1893.

You feel free to ask any question in the matter no matter what so.

Dear Sureshji,

I have corrected all the files.

I have removed the joint loads under Dead Load and recalculated the seismic weight. This has been
applied as joint loads.

Coming to the factor of 0.376. I agree that this value should be =(Z/2)*(I/R) and the ACC scale factor
should be such that when it is multiplied with the normalised spectral acceleration coefficient, The
horizontal seismic coefficient is obtained for each mode.

Thereafter the total base shear is compared with the base shear obtained from static procedure and
changes to the coefficient made accordingly to match the same.

Hence the ACC scale factor needs to be changed accordingly from 1.

What I have done is kept the ACC scale factor as 1 since in IS1893(Part 1):2002 the Table is given in
which the scale factor for 5% damping is given as 1. But if other damping is to be considered this factor
is then put accordingly from that table.

Hence instead of changing this factor which may or may not be 1 depending upon the damping of the
structure, I make changes in the X coefficient.

The result in both cases works out to be the same and hence I follow this procedure due to its simplicity
compared with the other method.

If you find difficulty in understanding my method you can change the ACC scale factor too to get
equivalent base shear, the results will be the same.

This is the explanation of how I have achieved this factor.

Now that I have corrected the program and followed all clauses as per IS1893(part 1):2002, I am still
getting similar result that I had got earlier i.e. with master slave command more reinforcement is
required.

Please let me know if you have any queries or better still if you think that we talk then we can exchange
our numbers, as you may deem fit.

Warm Regards,

Sorry I had forgotten to attach the respective files. Please find the files attached herein.

New folder.rar
Description:
Filename: New folder.rar
Filesize: 18.69 KB Download
Downloaded: 59 Time(s)
You have applied IBC code and I fail to understand your reasoning for higher X and Z factors for which
you have referred to IS 1893 under the cover of damping ratio. When you have input the value for
damping as 0.05 in the input file, where is the question of reworking on the damping beyond the input
value. Is it possible to refer IS code for the input value assigned as per IBC. Further there is no difference
in the consumption of steel for the two cases referred to by you. They are 12.22 kn and 12.24 kn i.e.
very close to each other.

Dear SEFIANS

Thanks Mr Nitin & Suresh for extensive interaction between you two on Seismic Analysis using STAAD
for framed structures. Nitin, I noted from your replies that you have good clarity on this subject and
cleared doubts of Mr Suresh quite nicely.

However, during your delibrations, my original question has been totally forgotton and it still remains
unanswered. I am surprised, other SEFI members also did'nt give much input into the problem I sought
clarification.

Anyway, I agree 100% with comments of Mr I Barau, SEFI member, that using software tricks and
gimmicks to reduce reinf in columns is not at all correct. That, my example is yet another example of
mindless application of software without understanding the strcutral response, is also correct.

May I again pose my question to SEFI members for clarifications :

Is it correct to increase the Iyy value of beams infinitely to model rigidity of RCC slabs for lateral load
analysis (Sesimic or Wind) of RCC framed structures instead of using Master & Slave command, when
using STAAD.
 if yes, what is correct enhancement done Iyy value of beams to model RCC slab rigidity ?
How is this method of enhancing Iyy value of beams better than MASTER slave command for frame
analysis for lateral loads.

I look forward to specific discussion and clarification on this aspect please by SEFI members.

Dear Pradeepji,

My Thoughts on the points you have raised are as follows:

Flexural Rigidity is a function of two factors which are 'E' modulus of flexibility and 'I' moment of inertia.

Moment of inertia further depends upon dimensions. Hence to increase moment of inertia we would be
playing with the dimensions which could result in some uncontroable problem later on in the analysis.

Therefore we are limited to the changing the rigidity of the beams by changing their 'E' given under
constants.

Now by assigning higher 'E' value for beams we can achieve greater rigidity. But to what extent, this is a
big question mark. We may come close to simulating the slab rigidity but other factors may come in play
such as if any beam is oriented at an angle to the planar axes, then its behaviour would affect the
results, this effect would also occur in the case of deep beams.

Lets say even if we manage to counter all the above problems, the real question mark is what value
should we increase the modulus of rigidity. One can do repeated analysis and can come close to achieve
the practical result, but it may differ for another structure.

Now Staad developers have done their analysis and developed this method of incorporating the slab
rigidity through master slave command.

So I personally feel, that using a the master slave command would be a better proposition than changing
the 'E' value, since we do not have any control over changing 'E' in how it will change the analysis
results.

The discussion on EXPANSION JOINT lead to the topic of SEISMIC JOINT. The concept for
these two separation gap is different.

In expansion joint the gap is provided in buildings and pavements due to the movement
caused by shrinkage, temperature, creep and settlement. These MOVEMENT joints should
pass through the whole structure above ground in one plane.
Different school of thoughts prevail over the spacing specifications as:

In one reference for the thermal differences 25m is specified, but many authors have as below:

1. Lewerenz (1907)--75ft(23m).
2. Hunter (1963) 80' (25m) for walls and insulated roofs, 30 to 40ft(9 to 12m) for
uninsulated roofs.
3. Billing (1960) 100 ft (30m) maximum building length without joints. Recommends joint
placement at abrupt changes in plan and at changes in building height to account for
potential stress concentration.
4. Wood(19810 100 TO 120 FT(30 TO 35M) for walls.
5. INDIAN STANDARD iNSTITUTION (1964 45M (148FT) maximum building length
between joints.
6. PCA (1982) 200ft (60m) maximum building length between without joints.
7. ACI -350R-83 specifies 12ft (35m) in sanitary structures partially filled with liquid
(closer spacing's required when no liquid present).

 It is clear that the spacing is to be provided depending on the material used for
construction-steel, concrete, masonry, wood etc and type of structure, shape and plan etc.
Engineering judgment and experience should be exercised before making the spacing
between joints.

SEISMIC JOINT:
Reference can be made by browsing the topic on Seismic design and experts forum wherein a
complete explanation is given through a PDF file which contains sketches.

The gap for Seismic effect is due the earthquake vibration only and the gap is more than the
expansion joint gaps.

T.Rangarajan.
Back to top

thirumalaichettiar
General Sponsor

Joined: 26 Jan 2003

Posts: 2370

Posted: 12 Sep 2011 12:15 Post subject:

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9627&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
In the above under Seismic design the following s explained:

9. How to avoid POUNDING effect of structures?

Vide for more explanation for the answer in the link below.

SEISMIC DESIGN PROBLEM-8-STOREY DRIFT AND POUNDING

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6708

In addition to the above link refer clause "5- SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION FEATURES" of IS
4326 in which more information on separation of building is furnished.

Added on 17/04/2011.

under the link the seismic joint pdf file is attached.

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9627&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210

Hope that sefians can have some conceptual ideas on expansion (Movement joints) ad Seismic
joint.

The discussion on EXPANSION JOINT lead to the topic of SEISMIC JOINT. The concept for
these two separation gap is different.

In expansion joint the gap is provided in buildings and pavements due to the movement
caused by shrinkage, temperature, creep and settlement. These MOVEMENT joints should
pass through the whole structure above ground in one plane.

Different school of thoughts prevail over the spacing specifications as:

In one reference for the thermal differences 25m is specified, but many authors have as below:

1. Lewerenz (1907)--75ft(23m).
2. Hunter (1963) 80' (25m) for walls and insulated roofs, 30 to 40ft(9 to 12m) for
uninsulated roofs.
3. Billing (1960) 100 ft (30m) maximum building length without joints. Recommends joint
placement at abrupt changes in plan and at changes in building height to account for
potential stress concentration.
4. Wood(19810 100 TO 120 FT(30 TO 35M) for walls.
5. INDIAN STANDARD iNSTITUTION (1964 45M (148FT) maximum building length
between joints.
6. PCA (1982) 200ft (60m) maximum building length between without joints.
7. ACI -350R-83 specifies 12ft (35m) in sanitary structures partially filled with liquid
(closer spacing's required when no liquid present).
  It is clear that the spacing is to be provided depending on the material used for
construction-steel, concrete, masonry, wood etc and type of structure, shape and plan etc.
Engineering judgment and experience should be exercised before making the spacing
between joints.

SEISMIC JOINT:
Reference can be made by browsing the topic on Seismic design and experts forum wherein a
complete explanation is given through a PDF file which contains sketches.

The gap for Seismic effect is due the earthquake vibration only and the gap is more than the
expansion joint gaps.

When a building experiences earthquake vibrations its foundation will move back and forth with
the ground. These vibrations can be quite intense, creating stresses and deformation throughout
the structure making the upper edges of the building swing from a few mm to many inches
dependent on their height size and mass. This is uniformly applicable for buildings of all heights,
whether single storeyed or multi-storeyed in high-risk earthquake zones.
A building needs to be slightly flexible and also have components, which can withstand or
counter the stresses caused in various parts of the building due to horizontal movements caused
by earthquakes.
In Mexico earthquake it was observed that buildings of different sizes and heights vibrated with
different frequencies. Where these were made next to each other they created stresses in both the
structures and thus weakened each other and in many cases caused the failure of both the
structures.
Bureau Of Indian Standards clearly gives in its code IS 4326 that a Separation Section is to be
provided between buildings. Separation Section is defined as `A gap of specified width between
adjacent buildings or parts of the same building, either left uncovered or covered suitably
to permit movement in order to avoid hammering due to earthquake `. Further it states
that ` For buildings of height greater than 40 meters, it will be desirable to carry out model
or dynamic analysis of the structures in order to compute the drift at each storey, and the
gap width between the adjoining structures shall not be less than the sum of their dynamic
deflections at any level.`
Thus it is advised to provide adequate gap between two buildings greater than the sum of the
expected bending of both the buildings at their top, so that they have enough space to vibrate.
Unfortunately in India building byelaws permit construction of adjoining houses without gap.
The buildings constructed on them are in varying heights and levels of floors. At the time of an
earthquake these buildings would vibrate with different frequencies. Since there is no gap
between these buildings they would press into each other creating additional stresses at the points
of contact. Normally the buildings are designed as an individual, thus no provision is provided
for the additional forces coming from the neighboring house causing initial weakening and then
complete failure of structural components at contact point in earthquakes of high intensity and
where it lasts for a longer duration.
This situation is further compounded when the slab level of one building is near the mid level of
the walls and columns of the neighboring building, the walls and columns are normally not
designed for taking this additional shear force caused by the horizontal force coming from the
neighboring slab. This causes buckling of the columns and walls at times of excessive stresses at
the mid points (courtesy your neighbouring building) and thus the collapse of the buildings onto
each other starting a chain reaction. Since one cannot predict how one`s neighbour is going to
build his house at the time of design it is better to take other precautions such as maintaining gap.
In the case of high-rise multi storeyed residential and commercial complexes expansion joints
are provided when the length of the building exceeds a length specified by code. This expansion
joint is provided for relieving stresses caused due to expansion or contraction of construction
material owing to temperature changes. At this point the buildings are totally separated and a gap
of 1 to 2" is provided which is filled with a flexible material. However this is causing a major
problem i.e. the deflection of these independent buildings during earthquake is much more in
high rise buildings than the expansion joint and since at this point these buildings are separate
and of varying size they would swing and hammer with each other and weaken the buildings.
Structural components around the expansion joint would be severely damaged and there shall be
a chain reaction of forces in the total structure for which the structure has not been designed.
These cracks can be easily observed by just going around Delhi and Gurgaon and various cities
of Gujarat. The damage caused in the recent earthquake by the seismic forces in the high rise
residential and commercial buildings at the position of expansion joints is clearly visible and
indicates to the gravity of the situation.
A major problem as seen in the states adjoining Delhi is that, common wall construction is
allowed and long rows of houses or commercial buildings are made with common walls without
gaps. Here again engineers designing one`s house cannot be aware of the forces due to
earthquake which will come from the neighbouring house, who will be sharing your external
wall or structural frame with his. This system is totally against the principle of earthquake proof
construction and design since this puts in an unknown factor regarding moments and horizontal
forces for which the walls or building frames are to be designed. Further this is also against the
provision of the I.S Code where a building or structure is to be separated every 30m for allowing
expansion caused due to properties of building materials.
Thus it is advised that in areas where high intensity earthquakes are expected the following
precautions be taken:

1. Municipal and other housing bodies should insure that a suitable gap is provided between
two adjoining buildings at the time of sanction.

2. Town Planners while cutting plots should also keep this provision of separation of
buildings while deciding their size.

3. Instead of expansion joints proper gap as required due to bending/movement of the two
parts of the building due to earthquake be provided in all buildings.

4. It should be made compulsory to submit structural design, drawings along with certificate
from structural engineer at the time of sanction of building plans. These should give
details of
a) Soil condition and bearing capacity.
b) Earthquake zone for which the building has been designed.
c) I.S. Codes used for design.
5. All relaxations in building byelaws generally given at the time of completion should be
incorporated at the time of sanction only in the new byelaws and no relaxation should be
permitted afterwards to ensure that no changes are made in structural design after
sanction.

6. Submission of Structural certificates from the designer to the governing municipal body
after casting of foundations and at each floor level should be made compulsory. This
should state that the reinforcement and R.C.C casted have been verified and are as per his
structural design submitted to the body at time of sanction.

7. Common wall system between adjoining buildings should be totally abolished.

To summarize, Building Bye - Laws should be amended keeping in consideration all the
recommendations in I.S. Codes. Also start appreciating the importance of the role of the
Structural Engineer, and hire them separately independent of the Architect to ensure
proper structural design. It`s your life at stake and not any one else`s.

1. External sources
· Temperature variation
· Loading (static and dynamic, including gravity, wind and earthquakes): Estimation of
movements due to loading is generally covered in codes of practice for concrete; such
movements do not normally result in the need for structural joints. However joints are often
introduced into buildings with unsymmetrical structures Figure 1 to minimize eccentricity
between the building’s center of mass and the structure’s shear center.

Figure 1: Movement joints for unsymmetrical structures (CIRIA Report 146)

· Atmospheric humidity changes: Experience indicates that atmospheric humidity changes do
not on their own warrant movement joints in concrete. (CIRIA Report 146)
· Ground movements (settlement, consolidation, shrinkage, heave, etc): Figure 2 for example
from (CIRIA Report 146) shows a tower block with piled foundations, abutting a low-rise block
on spread footings or a raft. The site is underlain by clay, for which the foundation solutions
chosen are both logical and economical. It is recognized that the settlement characteristics of
piled and spread or rafted foundations are different and so it is logical to separate the two
blocks by a joint allowing independent movement.

Figure 2: Movement joint location determined by ground and foundation considerations

2. Internal Sources
(a) Early-age thermal movement from the rise in concrete temperature during cement hydration
and, more significantly, the subsequent drop back toward ambient temperature.
(b) Irreversible drying shrinkage: Special cases need particular attention to design for shrinkage
effects are large ground floor slabs, water- containing/ retaining structures, and elements linking
sections with differing stiffness. Where practical, ground-bearing slabs can be constructed on a
slip membrane to allow contraction to occur, aided by sufficient reinforcement to control
shrinkage cracking. The design of water-retaining structures must give particular attention to
crack control; guidance is given in (BS 8007). Special care will be needed where the stiffness of
the structure against shrinkage movements is locally reduced as in Figure 3 and where stiff walls
or columns provided at the edge of the building Figure 4.

Figure 3: Movement joints at change in building profile (CIRIA Report 146)

Figure 4: Typical floor plan of building (CIRIA Report 146)

(c) Creep under stress: (CIRIA Report 146) mentioned that creep in itself will not warrant
provision of joints in orthodox structures. However, it may be significant in special
circumstances as in Figure 5. Vertical shortening of the core due to creep (and also shrinkage)
after construction could induce damaging stresses in bath trusses and perimeter columns unless
provision was made for controlled release and re-tightening of steel joints at intervals. Creep
effects will also compound the need for joints between a concrete structure and non-structural
components such as infill masonry walls.

Figure 5: A structure where creep effects may warrant provision for movement (CIRIA Report
146)

On Fri, 9/9/11, jiwaji <forum@sefindia.org> wrote:

[quote]
From: jiwaji <forum@sefindia.org>
Subject: [SEFI] Re: expansion joint
To: general@sefindia.org
Date: Friday, 9 September, 2011, 11:08 AM

Just the way we consider a structure subject to various loads ("actions"), we consider the
effect various agents causing movements in structures of various types. Thermal
expansion/contraction is just one of these.
Seismic and wind movements, differential foundation settlements, secondary effects of imposed
gravity loads under lateral loading,causing large and complex movements are other examples.
In general these "joints" are termed "movement" or "separation" sections, which relieve an
irregular, long structure subjected to temperature, earthquakes etc of of exceesive compressive,
tensile or torsional stresses which are not amenable to normal calculations.
Hence we isolate similar sections- similar heightwise, configurationwise- thru these movement
joints and analyse and detail them without having to account for these stresses.

Long basements with super-structure taking up a small part in plan are subject to large
differential movements as described above,in all directions, which are difficult to
quatify/predict, with current computational limitations. Hnece it is desirable to have suiatble
isolating sections, but continuous foundation-systems need not be split that way, especially a
raft plate as it can easily absorb these, resting as it does on an elastic medium like soil.
Since we have to provide expansion joints in every 45 m. of length, the standard gap is 50 mm.
Smaller gaps may be difficult to provide in the field.

However, for seismic analysis, the gap has to be delta(max allowable) *2 + 50 mm, to cater to
out of phase displacement of the two adjacent structures.
As per IS 456
Normally structures exceeding 45m length are designed with one /or more
expansion joints
However in view of large nos of factors involved in deciding the location
spacing and nature of expansion joints, the provision of EJ in rcc structures
shall be left to the discretion of designer.IS3414 gives design considerations
which need to be examined and provided for.

Codal provision indicate that expansion joint beyond 45m length

is desirable.

However if building without expansion joint is attempted , it is advisable

to take thermal effects in design .

Though not involved in rigorous thermal calcs due to this ,the opinion is
only personal.
The minimum reinf requirements of rcc members need to be enhanced

Additional thermal movements of structure parts(beams and columns)

beyond 22.5m from center(of length), need to be accounted for thru addtional
moments in frame members.The end columns and their frame beams
will be affected most.Lower few stories columns/beams will be affected most.

Expansion joint ,if provided beyond 45m shall have higher separation

Expect other members involved in thermal calcs to share their views

for benefit of all.

best regards
The discussion on EXPANSION JOINT lead to the topic of SEISMIC JOINT. The concept for
these two separation gap is different.

In expansion joint the gap is provided in buildings and pavements due to the movement
caused by shrinkage, temperature, creep and settlement. These MOVEMENT joints should
pass through the whole structure above ground in one plane.

Different school of thoughts prevail over the spacing specifications as:

In one reference for the thermal differences 25m is specified, but many authors have as below:

1. Lewerenz (1907)--75ft(23m).
2. Hunter (1963) 80' (25m) for walls and insulated roofs, 30 to 40ft(9 to 12m) for
uninsulated roofs.
3. Billing (1960) 100 ft (30m) maximum building length without joints. Recommends joint
placement at abrupt changes in plan and at changes in building height to account for
potential stress concentration.
4. Wood(19810 100 TO 120 FT(30 TO 35M) for walls.
5. INDIAN STANDARD iNSTITUTION (1964 45M (148FT) maximum building length
between joints.
6. PCA (1982) 200ft (60m) maximum building length between without joints.
7. ACI -350R-83 specifies 12ft (35m) in sanitary structures partially filled with liquid
(closer spacing's required when no liquid present).

 It is clear that the spacing is to be provided depending on the material used for
construction-steel, concrete, masonry, wood etc and type of structure, shape and plan etc.
Engineering judgment and experience should be exercised before making the spacing
between joints.

SEISMIC JOINT:
Reference can be made by browsing the topic on Seismic design and experts forum wherein a
complete explanation is given through a PDF file which contains sketches.

The gap for Seismic effect is due the earthquake vibration only and the gap is more than the
expansion joint gaps.

T.Rangarajan.
Back to top

thirumalaichettiar
General Sponsor
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 2370

Posted: 12 Sep 2011 12:15 Post subject:

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9627&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
In the above under Seismic design the following s explained:

9. How to avoid POUNDING effect of structures?

Vide for more explanation for the answer in the link below.

SEISMIC DESIGN PROBLEM-8-STOREY DRIFT AND POUNDING

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6708

In addition to the above link refer clause "5- SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION FEATURES" of IS
4326 in which more information on separation of building is furnished.

Added on 17/04/2011.

under the link the seismic joint pdf file is attached.

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9627&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210

Hope that sefians can have some conceptual ideas on expansion (Movement joints) ad Seismic
joint.

T.Rangarajan.

vikramjeet

Dear SAFIAN,
I have seen one RCC class room building (GF+3Floors) having
length of more than 110m with two stair cases in Sathyabama
University/ Chennai constructed 8 years before without
expansion joints appearing no cracks even today. I wonder how this
building was constructed without any expansion joint. Is any body
prove with calculation that building with length of 100m need not require
expansion joint.