Etabs Faq

A Few General Queries on ETABS/SAFE
Q: What are constraints?

A: Constraint are used to simulate a desired rigid body behaviour in a model or to connect different
parts of the model and to impose certain types of symmetry conditions. For example when we don’t
wish to model the axial deformations in a beam we can do so by imposing a constraint so that all
horizontal deformations of nodes connecting beams are identical.
Q: Please describe the Floor modelling and Diaphragms briefly?

A: The floor system has following main functions:
1. To transfer loads applied normal to the plane of floor to vertical supports by producing a floor
bending action.
2. To distribute the lateral loads by in-plane action to vertical elements like beam column frame
and shear walls.
Floor Characteristics:
The floor may be a simple slab beam system where floor slab has much smaller bending stiffness than
the beams on which it is assumed to rest. Alternatively the floor may directly rest on columns and
walls and beam may or may not be used on the periphery. In the former case for a realistic prediction
of building behaviour an adequate modelling of beams with columns and walls is mandatory. The
modelling of floor to capture its bending is optional as it is of minor importance in most cases. But in
case when the floor directly rests on columns and walls, for capturing the realistic behaviour, we must
model the floor along with columns and walls. So in the former case we may or may not model the
floor explicitly as finite elements but in the latter case we must model the floor as finite element mesh.
Without modelling the floor as finite element mesh its plate bending behaviour can’t be captured.
Generally in a beam and slab floor system a direct floor modelling with finite elements is avoided to
keep the problem size small.
Floor may behave as a Rigid Diaphragm:

Certain type of floors exhibit very high in-plane stiffness. Ordinary concrete floors and metal decks
with concrete topping can be treated as rigid in their own plane in most cases. By virtue of their high
in-plane stiffness, such floors behave as if these were a rigid body in their own plane when subjected
to lateral ground motions. Such floors during lateral motion will keep all frames and shear walls
connected with them together and in addition the floor shape during and after load application will
remain essentially same. Since such floors exhibit a negligible in-plane deformation, they are often
called as “Rigid Diaphragms”. This doesn’t mean that the floor diaphragm is rigid in bending.
Rigidity of floor is related only to its in-plane behaviour while for the out of plane bending the floor is
considered as flexible. It should be noted that for rigid floor diaphragms, beams will show zero axial
force, since in the primary assumption the in-plane deformation has been neglected. However if the
beam is connected to an inclined member which gives a force component in the plane of diaphragm
then for such a rigid diaphragm, beam axial force will still appear as zero due to the fundamental
assumption made in modelling of rigid diaphragms. This point is often overlooked by engineers. Thus
in cases where the beams at floor level are expected to develop significant axial force components like
in case of Virendeel frames, trusses etc., floors should NOT be modelled as rigid diaphragms.
ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 1

Floor may behave as a Flexible Diaphragm too:
If after application of loads in its own plane, the floor shows significant in-plane bending then the
floor can’t be considered as rigid in its own plane. This could be significant for buildings with plan
aspect ratio greater than 3. The problem is more pronounced for buildings with long and narrow floors
connected with stiff shear walls at ends along the shorter plan dimension. However in certain cases a
floor with a lower aspect ratio may also exhibit significant in-plane flexibility if it has discontinuous
shear walls at the floor level.
Q: Is rigid diaphragm modelling essential?
A: Assigning a floor as a rigid diaphragm simplifies modelling in most cases and it also results in a
smaller problem size. However it is not correct to say that every diaphragm should be modelled as
rigid because there are exceptions too. So the challenge is to find if the modelling as rigid diaphragm
is a correct assumption for the problem at hand. The best way of doing it is to study it separately.
Floors with large cut outs and connected with discontinuous shear walls, floors with larger plan aspect
ratio of about 3 and floors connected with stiff end walls on the periphery along shorter direction
should be examined in detail for their in-plane flexibility.
Q: Can additional seismic load cases with 5% eccentricity be avoided as required by IS code for
rigid diaphragm if we use semi-rigid diaphragm in ETABS?
A: IS-1893 has an explicit definition of semi rigid or flexible diaphragm. The concrete slab without
any rigid diaphragm option does not fall into category of flexible diaphragm. Therefore accidental
eccentricity still needs to be considered for design.
IS 1893 Clause 7.7.2.2
A floor diaphragm shall be considered flexible, if it deforms such that the maximum lateral
displacement measured from the chord of the deformed shape at any point of the diaphragm is more
than 1.5 times the average displacement of the entire diaphragm.
IBC 2006 Clause 1601.1
Diaphragm flexible. A diaphragm is flexible for the purpose of distribution of story shear and
torsional moment where so indicated in Section 12.3.1 ofASCE7, as modified in Section 1613.6.1.
ASCE 7-05 Clause 12.3.1
12.3.1 Diaphragm Flexibility. The structural analysis shall consider the relative stiffnesses of
diaphragms and the vertical elements of the seismic force--resisting system. Unless a diaphragm can
be idealized as either flexible or rigid in accordance with Sections 12.3.1.1, 12.3.1.2, or 12.3.1.3, the
structural analysis shall explicitly include consideration of the stiffness of the diaphragm (i.e.,
semirigid modeling assumption).
12.3.1.1 Flexible Diaphragm Condition. Diaphragms constructed of untopped steel decking or wood
structural panels are permitted to be idealized as flexible in structures in which the vertical elements
are steel or composite steel and concrete braced frames, or concrete, masonry, steel, or composite
shear walls. Diaphragms of wood structural panels or untopped steel decks in one- and two-family
residential buildings of light-frame construction shall also be permitted to be idealized as flexible.
12.3.1.2 Rigid Diaphragm Condition. Diaphragms of concrete slabs or concrete filled metal deck with
span-to-depth ratios of 3 or less in structures that have no horizontal irregularities are permitted to be
idealized as rigid.

12.3.1.3 Calculated Flexible Diaphragm Condition. Diaphragms not satisfying the conditions of
Sections 12.3.1.1 or 12.3.1.2 are permitted to be idealized as flexible where the computed maximum
in plane deflection of the diaphragm under lateral load is more than two times the average story drift
of adjoining vertical elements of the seismic force--resisting system of the associated story under
equivalent tributary lateral load as shown in Fig. 12.3-1. The loadings used for this calculation shall
be those prescribed by Section 12.8.
Q: Should we model the floor as shell element or a plate element or a membrane element?
A: All these types are special cases of shell element. In case of the plate element, in-plane
deformation in the area object is neglected. This type of element could be used for modelling of mat
foundations as in most mat foundations in-plane deformations can be neglected. Thick plate option is
to be used for those mats which have a high thickness resulting in a span to depth ratio of about 6 or
less. This special formulation takes into account transverse shear deformations in the element which
could be important for thicker elements. Shell type property can be used when the area object is likely
to show in-plane as well as out of plane deformations. Shear walls, general shells like domes should
be modelled using this property. A membrane type property could be used when the area object
exhibits only in-plane deformation. For example planar walls and floors which directly rest on beams
can be modelled using membrane type property. For a beam slab system shell element could also be
used for floor modelling but in that case, such an area object must be meshed in smaller finite element
mesh and the relative stiffnesses of slab and beams will govern the load path. However, we suggest
that for all walls, whether planar or 3-D use shell type property. For slabs directly resting on beams
use membrane type property and for flat slabs or those slabs where you wish to capture the slab
bending and compute the forces in slabs from the program, use shell type property.
Q: When I use membrane type property I am getting gray meshing lines in the slab panels.
What is that?
A: When an area object is modelled as plate or shell and meshed properly then the plate bending
stiffness is used to predict its deflection and that automatically takes into account the load distribution
on beam /column supports. That is true for simpler slab panels as well as arbitrary shaped panels both.
However when area object is modelled as a membrane then the area object is not having any plate
bending stiffness but has only membrane (in-plane) stiffness. This could be used for diaphragm
studies for those floors which are having a beam slab system but such an area object can't transfer the
loads normal to the area to support beams by considering the stiffness formulation simply because the
required stiffness is being ignored. Since the load has to be considered to predict the building’s
response to gravity loads too, in ETABS, gravity load to supporting beam is transferred using
simplified method of load distribution for rectangular panels where the load could be taken as
triangular or trapezoidal load, directly applied to supporting beams existing on slab panel edges. In
that the shape of object becomes important and best results are obtained from those meshed panels
which have maximum 3 or 4 nodes after meshing the larger area along beam lines and walls.
Moreover the edges must be straight but the angles at corners need not be 90 degrees. When we have
an area object panel which has more than 4 nodes then program does not have any simplified rule to
transfer the load in the form of distributed triangular/trapezoidal loads and in such a situation program
will divide such an area object into other smaller elements so that each element is having either 3 or 4
nodes and simplified load transfer rule can be applied to such resulting area shapes. Since the new
meshing lines generated by ETABS have no beam or wall so program will insert a NULL type beam
object just to collect loads from the meshing line and such a load is transferred to end support points
of such a NULL beam as point loads. The resulting load transfer from membrane object to supporting
beams must be examined by the user independently.

Q: How the meshing of area objects can be done correctly?
A: Area object can be used to model ramps, shear walls and floor slabs. For shear walls meshing is
normally not needed in most usual cases. See a discussion on shear wall meshing in another Q/A
given in this document. Ramps and flat slabs should be modelled using shell object and should be
meshed into finite elements by the user. The meshing could be manual meshing or you can specify an
automesh. We suggest that avoid manual meshing as it may give rise to other issues related with
display when the model becomes large. The program by default will not mesh area objects with plate
and shell type property. The user is expected to define the meshing options. An area object with
membrane type property by default will be automeshed at the locations of beams and walls. In general
a membrane type area object should be meshed at locations of beams and walls only and avoid to
mesh it like a finite element mesh simply because at meshed nodes no bending stiffness exists and it
will lead to numerical problems.
Please remember:
1. The simplest level is that the floor is modelled as one big polygon and is used only to define the
extent of the floor. It is assigned meshing type - "For Defining Rigid Diaphragm and Mass only
(No stiffness - No vertical load transfer)". It is assigned a rigid diaphragm so it connects all elements
falling within laterally but is unable to transfer any vertical load. This model can be used for a quick
study of the lateral load resisting system. This is very useful when studying different layouts for
lateral load resisting system like shear walls etc. In most cases this model will be very small and will
run very fast.
2. The second level is a step higher in that the floor is meshed coarsely and given only membrane or
deck properties. One could assign a rigid diaphragm if needed, otherwise connectivity is still provided
through the coarse mesh. The vertical load is transferred to edges of coarse mesh and is either
supported directly by columns or by beams and walls on the edges. This is commonly used with
composite floors and can be used for thinner concrete floors too where beams are designed for full
gravity loads and slab bending stiffness is not important to the lateral analysis.
3. The third level is to have a decent mesh of the floor either done externally or internally that
connects the major structural elements and also models the correct bending stiffness of the floor for
frame action with columns. This obviously is the correct model and the reason to go to the previous
two levels is to avoid getting a huge model that takes too much time solving or cannot even be solved
on current hardware
So which one will work best for you in a specific situation depends on your modelling objectives. Just
use the above guidelines.
Q: What is the importance of Line Constraints?

A: In most finite element models the user will create the finite element meshes which are connected at
only the finite element nodes. The resulting finite element mesh is often called a matching mesh. Most
programs will not analyse a finite element model correctly when the meshes are not connected at
nodes or in other words meshes are mismatched meshes. Mismatched meshes are helpful in the sense
that the modelling is not hindered by the requirement of creating matching nodes. For example a finite
element mesh of a flat slab can be laid out neatly along its column and drop lines. Suppose after
generation of this neat finite element mesh you need to add a shear wall whose element nodes are not
connected with flat slab element nodes rather they get connected only at the element sides. In such
cases most ordinary programs will involve a time consuming exercise of redefining the connectivity

and geometry. In SAP2000 and ETABS this is handled effortlessly by creating line constraints along
the connecting edge of elements with dissimilar meshes. See the figure below. For model on the left,
deformations of a mismatched finite element are not correct where line constraints are not activated,
while with line constraint the right hand model captures the deformations adequately. In such a case
deformations of nodes falling on side of another element are interpolated from the deformations of
corner joint of the area element. No additional stiffness is added and the effect of this is entirely local
to the edge of the element.
Figure 1: Line Constraint Option for modelling of mismatched area elements.

Connecting Meshes with the Edge Constraints: Left Model – No Line or Edge Constraints;
Right Model – Line or Edge Constraints Assigned to All Elements
In finite element analysis a matching mesh will always be superior to a mismatched mesh. But a
mismatched can be used with a good accuracy where the stiffness is uniform over the finite elements.
So in all such cases when there is a sudden change in the stiffness of element or there is an
opening around the element, mesh must be a matching mesh. In all other cases a mismatched mesh
can be used very well as it makes modelling simpler.
Q : Is it possible to provide a partial rotational stiffness to a beam end ?

A: Yes it is possible to specify it directly in ETABS/SAP model. Compute stiffness of partially rigid
end connection using the following formula and assign it by using Frame Release option.
( ); ( )
Where :
Ki = Rotational spring stiffness of partially restrained connection at end i.

Kj = Rotational spring stiffness of partially restrained connection at end j.
Ri and Rj = Fixity factors of connection at end i and j of the element. A fully restrained joint has a
value of 1.0 and a free joint has a value of 0.
E, I and L = Young’s Modulus, Moment of inertia of section and length of element respectively.
Q : What is the utility of property modifier?

A: Property modifiers can be used to alter the stiffness of objects without the need of redefining the
section properties. Program by default assumes modifier value as 1.0. Suppose a property modifier is
taken as 0.5 for I33 for a beam then the flexural stiffness of the beam for rotation about local axis 3
will be taken as half of full stiffness. These can be used conveniently to model the effect of cracking
on stiffness reduction. Please also see UBC code for recommended values for modifiers for stiffness
reduction to invoke the effect of cracking in the model.
Q : Should the shear walls be meshed?

A: Answer is Yes and No both. A more precise answer could be it all depends on what you are
modelling. We strongly recommend to use a matching mesh around openings. See the example below.
Figure 2 below shows two meshing options. Wall in Figure 2a, should be meshed horizontally at the
node location highlighted in the figure.
(a) Incorrect Meshing (b) Correct Meshing
Figure 2: Meshing of Wall Objects
Another issue is whether meshing of wall in horizontal and vertical directions is required? To answer
this query first try to recognise if the wall pier will show significant bending when subjected to lateral
loads? If the wall pier is stocky, means it is large in size then it is not likely to show significant
bending and meshing may not be required. But if the wall pier is slender it may undergo significant
bending and for that meshing is needed. See the following example.
Figure 3: Wall Meshing

In the wall in (a) individual piers are sufficiently large in size and don’t require any additional
meshing. In (b) left pier is very thin and may exhibit significant bending along its height which will
not be captured if this pier is not meshed. So by meshing it at mid height results will improve.
Similarly when the spandrel beam reduces in size, its bending may become significant. In (c) spandrel
beam is very flexible and it is better modelled by meshing it in its span. For very shallow spandrel
beam you can also use beam element to connect them to wall piers.
Now see another instance of wall modelling. In the example below in Figure 4, a wall with sudden
change in stiffness is modelled.
(a) Inadequate Meshing (b) Mesh the wall along thick lines in lower floor
Figure 4: Wall Meshing in the zone of Stiffness Change
In (a) deformations of corner points of wall panel in second story will not be captured adequately even
if ETABS is running the model without any issue. The reason is that the deformations of corner nodes
for second floor wall panels will be computed only approximately as line constraints are used to solve
this problem which has mismatched mesh. In (b) results will be more accurate when the wall in lower
story is meshed along thick lines as the approximations associated with line constraints will not come
into play as the two elements of story above and below are connected with a matching mesh.
Q : Will it be OK if shear walls is always meshed?

A: It is acceptable if you mesh the wall always. However keep a few things in mind. One, have a
matching mesh around the opening. Two, have a matching mesh at the zone of sudden stiffness
change. And finally keep in mind that mesh need not be very fine. A very fine mesh will result in a
large problem size and it will take longer to run and hence adds to the cost of analysis. So try to have
a balance in all these requirements so that the model predicts the behaviour of the building with a
reasonable accuracy and at the same time doesn’t take too long a time to run.
Q: I have a column with double height should it be connected to the floor diaphragm?
A: If a column is of double height but is otherwise not connected with the floor then remove the
diaphragm connectivity of the node at floor level. Please take a note that usually program will
automatically evaluate its correct effective length even if the column is broken at floor level or is of
double height.

Q: Is it required to mesh the beam and columns at intermediate locations where these are
connected with other element?
A: We suggest that keep one column element from one floor to the next floor above and keep only
one beam element from one column line to the next. There is no need to mesh it at any internal station
where it is connected with other elements. This is true even if you have a non-prismatic section. The
only instance when you are required to mesh the beam at intermediate stations is when a curved beam
is modelled. This limitation of ETABS program will be removed in a future release where you will be
able to model even a curved beam object with only two end nodes but till then mesh only the curved
beam at every 15 degrees angle in straight line segments to capture its bending adequately.
Q: Our design is going for a “Peer Review” and the reviewer is asking us to mesh the whole
model manually. What to do in such a case?
A: A manual mesh and automesh are same. The only difference is that the automesh options can be
changed to refine the model effortlessly, but in a manually meshed model it would be time
consuming. We suggest that run two small models one with automesh features and the other with
manual meshing and compare the results and show these to the reviewer. In most cases the reviewers
will accept it and will not insist upon the requirement of a manually meshed model.
Q: Can’t we have a simple text based input file for ETABS and SAFE? Sometimes reviewers
insist upon these.
A: Earlier versions of ETABS were using text based input. But GUI improved editing considerably
and it is simpler too. For review purpose we believe that the input which has been interpreted by the
program provides a far better and efficient way to check the input. For doing that in ETABS use
File>Print Tables>Input command and print the tables of the data you want to submit for checking.
This is better than an input file of closely packed nondescript text. The errors in the input can be
trapped better in the input tables written by the program.
Q: While running a model in ETABS, it is reporting several numerical instability warnings.

What these warnings are telling us?
A: The program performs most arithmetic with 15 digits of accuracy. When elements with
significantly different stiffnesses are connected to a common joint, some digits of accuracy may be
lost (for the element with smaller stiffness) during the arithmetic operations. Another example would
be using rigid diaphragm assumption together with flexible elements, local or global instabilities, etc.
The program provides the following messages based on the number lost digits of accuracy:
 Less than 6 digits lost: When the program suspects that less than 6 digits of accuracy will be
lost during solution it does not give any messages.
 Between 6 to 11 digits lost is reported as a warning: The results of the analysis may still be
acceptable but the user should carefully check the results, especially the global sums of loads.
 Above 11 digits lost results in the analysis being terminated with an error message because
the results may not be sufficient accurate. The model should be checked and revised.
These warnings are telling us that the model is not properly done and hence these give us an
opportunity to correct the model. For example in a model the numerical issues may be developing due
to multiple releases at a joint which make a few DOF of the joint orphaned (means whithout a
stiffness). This can be checked easily by the user as ETABS will also be reporting location of such
numerical issues noticed in the model.

Q: ETABS, is reporting numerical instability warnings and its locations but at the indicated
location there is no joint defined by me or any joint created by ETABS. How this could be
explained?
A: The location reported depends on the order in which the equations are solved. It may not refer to a
single location, but rather to some location related to an assemblage of elements that differ in stiffness
from other assemblages. A perfect example is when all or part of the structure is unsupported. There is
no single location that can be identified as the missing support, so it could refer to any point on the
unsupported structure.
Q: I am getting a –ve Jacobian error and I don’t know how to locate it. What could be done to
solve such issues?
A: A negative Jacobian error indicates a severely distorted finite element which could be coming
either from user defined meshed element or may be from an automeshed area object. Since ETABS
will not be reporting such an error by indicating its actual location we need to use Whole to Part
method for finding that. In that keep on deleting the model incrementally till the problem areas are
isolated. For example in a 20 story building model copy it in two new names and in one keep top 10
floors and in the other lower 10 floors and run these separately. Most likely you will have this issue in
only one of the model then copy it in new names and create two 5 story models for top and bottom
stories and repeat the process to arrive on the floor where you have this issue. Now see the meshed
object model and see closely severely distorted mesh. Select it and delete it. Most likely you will be
able to run the model and that means that the deleted object was the source of trouble. Improve its
meshing to fix this issue. However if you have this problem present on all floors then this could be a
bit involving and you can start by first seeing the meshed element patterns at each floor level to
physically check if a severely distorted mesh is present. Given that, it is recommended that this issue
be resolved.
Q: What is difference in Replicate and Copy command?
A: Copy command will only copy the geometry of the object and replicate command will not only
copy the geometry but it will also copy all assignments made to the parent object to the replicated
object.
Q: When we use area object as membrane we get higher moments in beam in comparison to the
model where area object is modelled as shell and meshed into finer elements? Please comment
why it is like that?
A: In membrane objects the load from floor is transferred directly to beams/walls as a distributed
load, like a triangular or a trapezoidal load and beam carries 100% of moment. When the floor is
modelled as shell object with finite element mesh then slab’s bending stiffness is also taken into
account. Hence as a result part of the moment goes to beam and remaining to the slab. This is the
reason a smaller moment develops in beams. However it should be noted that when a slab is modelled
as a shell object and its stiffness is taken into account then the design of slab should also be carried
out based on the finite element results so that the design and analysis are consistent with each other.
Q: We have a mixed type of modelling where part of the slab resting on beams is modelled as
membrane type object and a few non-rectngular slabs panels resting on beams have been
modelled as shell type with finite element mesh. But I receive a high torsion in beams which
receive load from the area modelled with shell type property and at the same time beam
moments appear smaller. How we could address this issue?

A: Beam moments are smaller due to the reasons given in the last question. If your only concern is the
load transfer to beams from an irregular slab panel then you can use a small trick. Select the slab
panel and specify property modifiers for M11, M22 and M12 as 0.1 and rerun the analysis. This will
cause a reduction in slab’s bending stiffness and moment retained by beam will increase. Torsion in
the beam can be reduced by using a torsional stiffness modifier for beam less than 1. A value of 0.25
to 0.35 is reasonable. However you the engineer has to determine in which cases torsion is to be
included or excluded in the model.
Q: ETABS always design beams for torsion. Is it possible to avoid design for torsion? I also use
another software XYZ which offers this facility. Can’t we have it in ETABS too?
A: This logic is incorrect even if it is available in the software XYZ. Either you have the force in a
component and design for that or you don’t have it and ignore it. In most building systems torsion in
beam develops due to compatibility of deformations. This can be handled conveniently by reducing
the torsional stiffness of beam as in most beams torsional stiffness is much smaller than that given by
torsional stiffness formula. However we don’t believe that a shortcut to avoid design for torsion
should be given in ETABS as this will be misused and often the errors it would cause would be un-
conservative. So to reduce torsional moment in beams best remedy is to reduce its torsional stiffness.
It must be kept in mind that torsion which develops due to equilibrium requirements must be included
in design.
Q: Can we change the numbering of Beams and Columns?
A: Currently you can’t do that conveniently. In the next version of ETABS this limitation is likely to
be removed. An option for auto relabeling is available which can change the labels automatically.
Q: How I can select line/area objects based on their labels?
A: Currently this is not available in ETABS though in SAP2000 it is available. It will be given in next
release of ETABS.
Q: How I can locate a specific element in the model?
A: Use Building Display option tool button and check the boxes of area, point and line labels. In the
display you will be able to see the labels. But it will still not show those meshed elements which are
developed by the program at runtime. For locating such elements first run the model and next use
Objects and Element check box as shown in the image below. In the displayed tables first locate the
element no. and then in joints table locate its coordinates. Now you can find where the element exists
in the model.

Figure 5: Display > Show Table Options
Q: How I can draw beams at mid landing level connected with two columns?
A: This can be done conveniently by seeing the two columns in elevation and use snap options to snap
at mid points and draw a line connecting the mid points of two columns. If you wish to move this
beam upwards or downwards within the story then select the beam and use Edit>Move command to
move it in vertical direction.
Q: But I have columns which are not exactly coming on grid lines how I can view these in
elevation?
A: First see the plan view where the required columns are shown correctly. Next use Draw>Draw
Developed elevation command and then program will ask you to name the elevation and program will
show a drawing mode cursor. Start with the first column and then keep on clicking along other
column lines which define the elevation. However start and end point should not be same. Once
completed press Esc key to exit. Now see the elevation which you just defined. It can be used for
further editing of geometry.

Q: What are Global Force Balance errors and how ETABS computes the Global Force Balance
Relative Error which is reported in ETABS .LOG and .OUT files?
A: For each Analysis Case, the sum of all joint forces and moments acting on the structure should be
in equilibrium. The program computes and prints a global force balance for the following types of
Analysis Cases: Loads, Modes, Specs, and Combos; no global force balance is computed for
Histories, or Combos that contain Histories. You should always review the global force balance as a
check on the validity of the structural model and the analysis.
For each Analysis Case, the program computes the resultants at the global origin for all joint forces
and moments acting on the structure. Separate resultants are computed for each type of joint force:
 Applied loads
 Inertial loads
 Spring forces
 Link forces
 Restraint Forces (Reactions)
 Constraint forces
 P-Delta forces
Each force resultant is computed as the sum of the forces acting on all joints in the structure. Each
moment resultant is computed as the sum of the moments acting on all joints in the structure, plus the
moments about the origin of the forces acting on all joints in the structure. This results in three force
and three moment components, all referred to the global coordinate system. The resultants are also
computed for the total of all these different forces and moments acting on the structure. These total
resultants should be zero if the structure is in exact equilibrium. Due to the approximate nature of
computer arithmetic, the totals may not be exactly zero. However, their values relative to the
magnitude of the contributing forces gives a measure of the accuracy and stability of the solution.
The resultant forces and moments are always printed in the output file for all Analysis Cases under the
heading:
GLOBAL FORCE BALANCE
In addition, relative equilibrium errors are printed in the log file under the heading:
GLOBAL FORCE BALANCE RELATIVE ERRORS
Here the total force and moment components are expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible
equilibrium error. The maximum possible error is computed as follows:
 For each component (FX, FY, FZ, MX, MY, and MZ), the absolute values of the resultants
for applied loads, inertial loads, spring forces, link forces, reactions, constraint forces, and P-
Delta forces are summed.
 The maximum of the absolute sums for FX, FY, and FZ is determined.
 The maximum of the absolute sums for MX, MY, and MZ is determined.
 The maximum possible error for the force components is the maximum of the absolute force
sums, or the maximum of the absolute moment sums divided by the average moment arm for
the structure, whichever is larger.
 The maximum possible error for the moment components is the maximum of the absolute
moment sums, or the maximum of the absolute force sums multiplied by the average moment
arm for the structure, whichever is larger.
This definition, while complicated, assures that only numerically meaningful equilibrium errors are
indicated as such.

Q: How I can model a deep beam?
A: Since ETABS frame element formulation includes both bending and shear deformations, frame
elements can be used to model deep beams. This may be reasonable approach to evaluate global
response, but localized response may need to be determined by a more refined model. For example,
the beam could be modeled by shell elements. Depending on the beam material, it may be also
worthwhile to use more specialized methods, such as the strut and tie method for the analysis and
design of reinforced concrete deep beams.
Q: ETABS 9.6 is giving me very high effective length factors for columns? What could be the
reason behind it?
A: In ETABS 9.6 and later versions effective length factors are computed based on Wood’s Charts as
required by IS:456. So the effective length computed by ETABS is same as required by IS:456. The
effective length of a column depends on how much rotational stiffness is available at column ends. If
the effective length is coming too high please check the flexural stiffness of beams connected to it. In
most cases program will be able to compute effective length factors correctly even for those columns
which are of double height or receive numerous beams in the story height. If you come across a case
when effective length factor doesn’t appear correct then you can use Design overwrites to assign it
manually.
Q: ETABS 9.6 is giving me effective length for a column connected with a flat slab only and it
doesn’t appear reasonable? What could be the reason behind it?
A: Current algorithm for effective length factor in ETABS works well for columns connected with
beams at its end. If a column is connected with floor only then ETABS can’t compute the effective
length factor using the Wood’s Charts as these were originally developed for frames connected with
beams only and further guidelines for evaluating the effective length factors for columns connected
with slab only are not available in our code IS:456. Though we admit that for the case of flat slabs
connected with columns, the effective length of column could be worked out on the basis of the
stiffness of slab which is likely to participate with columns as a beam to produce the frame action, but
it will be given in a future release. However you can still handle it on your own. Make a copy of the
flat slab model. Add beams connected to column lines in the flat slab but provide its stiffness based on
your judgement of its effective width. Now analyse the second model and check the effective length
of column. Use this effective length in your first model and do the design of column there. Now the
issue is how much effective width should be taken to estimate the stiffness of slab which works as a
beam. As a conservative estimate you can take approximately 0.15 to 0.25 times bay width on either
side of column as the width of slab-beam. Please also see concrete frame design manual for more
details on effective length computation method adopted in ETABS.
Q: Is it possible to avoid computation of effective length factors at all?
A: Yes it is possible but you should capture second order effects realistically. That is accomplished
by doing a P-Delta analysis. If that is done then effective length factors can be taken as 1.0. It should
be noted that original design algorithm of ETABS (upto ver 9.5) assumed that the user would be
doing a P-Delta analysis and program would always be assuming effective length factor as 1.0.
However it was found that only a few users in our country were actually doing it this way. So to
safeguard against a potential misuse we have given Wood’s Chart as default method and more
advanced P-Delta method as optional. If you wish to avoid it then conduct a good P-Delta analysis
and assign effective length factors as 1.0 by using design overwrites if you are using ver 9.6.0 or
9.7.0. However the program will be checking whether a P-Delta analysis has been performed in ver

9.7.1 and the effective length factors are assigned automatically as 1.0. It is the responsibility of users
to use available program options correctly.
Q: How we can do a “Good” P-Delta Analysis?
A: We will first develop the character of the problem to understand it clearly. Please see the
following Figure 6 which shows a column under compressive axial force as well as a horizontal shear.
(a) Undeformed Shape (b) Deformed Shape
Figure 6: Column under combined axial force and horizontal shear.
When strains and deformations both are small we can satisfy the equilibrium of forces for the un-
deformed geometry. This is what is done in common linear analysis. The problems of large strains
and large deformations are usually not common in most civil engineering structures. For most civil
engineering problems strains are small even if the deformations are large. Like in a stretched cable the
strain in the cable will be small though under load the same cable may show large deformations.
With this background now see the above noted equation for moment for the case when strains are
small but deformations are large. The final moment is given as:
M=Hh+Pu
The additional moment Pu will cause additional sway in this cantilever column at its free end, which
in turn will further increase the lateral sway “u” and that additional sway will cause additional
moment. This will continue if structure has a stable stiffness and soon the system will be in
equilibrium under applied forces after a few cycles.
In a good P-Delta analysis the challenge is to compute the final deformed geometry accurately and
satisfy the equilibrium of forces for the deformed geometry. For doing that we can deduce from the
equation above that two things are important. One we must use a realistic value of “P” and must
capture an equally realistic value of “u”. This is done by estimating the value of “P” for the limit state

under consideration for the load combination being used in design, and at the same time the stiffness
of the building should be representative of the stiffness when the structure is subjected to this limit
state load. In a severe ground shaking it is expected that the beams will be significantly cracked while
columns and walls will not be showing significant cracking. Cracking of beams and columns will
reduce their stiffness and if such a reduced stiffness is taken into account then the value of “u” for the
equation above will be computed realistically. So for a good P-Delta analysis you must modify the
stiffness of beams and column to reflect their reduced stiffness due cracking and at the same time you
must choose a load combination which is representative of axial forces present in the structure when
subjected to a specific load combination. For reduction in beam and column stiffness use guidelines
available in UBC or in ACI-318 as IS:456 is silent on this important issue. For the axial load
combination usually a most severe dead and live load combination such as 1.2DL+1.2LL can be used.
This is considered adequate for most cases. But in such a case axial load component due an applied
lateral load in a 3-D building frame is neglected. In most cases it is acceptable. In ETABS P-Delta can
be captured by using the following steps.
1. Define stiffness modifiers for column and beams using the stiffness reduction factors
recommended in the UBC or in ACI-318 codes. Be very careful when specifying these.
Stiffness modifiers will be different for T-beam and rectangular beams. Choose the one which
is most appropriate. Run some sample problems and see if the results are acceptable.
2. If you want only one load combination which you feel, on an average describes axial loads
present in a building system for all load combinations then use Analyze>Set Analysis Option
and check P-Delta box and specify the load combination as 1.2DL+1.2LL or any other
combination which you feel is reasonable. In another query this is elaborated further.
3. However if you want to take into account P-Delta effects for the same load combination for
which you are doing the design then you must do non-linear static analysis with P-Delta
option ON and in that define the load combination you wish to use with appropriate scale
factors. Use the results of this analysis for design directly by using your own design
combinations.
4. If you have columns which are expected to show significant bending between their heights
then you must specify meshing options for meshing the column along their mid height in two
or more segments. For doing that you need to use automesh options and avoid manual
meshing.
The advantage of P-Delta analysis is that we can afford the luxury of keeping effective length factors
as unity which simplifies the design greatly. Please also see ETABS design manual as well as AISC
360-05 code chapter 7 on frame stability for further discussion and also see the chapter on Geometric
Non-linearity in CSI Analysis Reference Manual.
Q: In literature we often come across the term “Geometric Stiffness”. Kindly throw some light
on that.
A: Take a simple example of a cable when it is stretched by applying a tensile force in the cable
between two anchors, it can carry loads. In a similar manner a long rod carrying a large axial
compressive load on the verge of buckling will buckle by a very small lateral load. This kind of
behaviour is caused by change in geometric stiffness of the structure.
The basic equations can be derived as shown below for a cable segment of length “L” and carrying a
tensile force P.

Figure 7: Forces on a Cable Element (from Wilson )
Consider the horizontal cable shown above of length L with an initial tension P. If the cable is
subjected to lateral displacements, vi and vj , at both ends, as shown, then additional forces, Fi and Fj,
must be developed for the cable element to be in equilibrium in its displaced position. Note that we
have assumed all forces and displacements are positive in the up direction. We have also made the
assumption that the displacements are small and do not change the tension in the cable.
Taking moments about point j in the deformed position, the following equilibrium equation can be
written as:
and Fj=-Fi
In matrix form these two equations can be written as:
 Fi  P  1  1  vi 
F     
 j  L   1 1  v j 
Or symbolically
FG=kGv
In above equation kG is called geometric stiffness and it can be noticed that it is not a function of
mechanical properties of the cable and is a function of only its initial load and length. By using this
name “Geometric Stiffness” we can differentiate it from the mechanical stiffness matrix which is
based on physical properties of the element. This geometric stiffness exists in all structures but it
becomes important only if it is large compared to mechanical stiffness.
For a 2D frame element standard result of geometric stiffness is given below.

and 2D frame element’s mechanical stiffness matrix without shearing deformation is given below
We can now recognise that if the large axial force present in the member remains constant, it is only
required to compute its total stiffness matrix kT, to account for the force induced stiffening or
softening effect.
Q: Could you please explain P-Delta analysis parameters?
A: There are two ways to specify the initial P-delta analysis in ETABS V7 to V9 as follows:
Non-iterative Based on Mass:

The load is computed automatically from the mass at each level as a story-by-story load upon the
structure. This approach is approximate, but does not require an iterative solution. This method is
identical to p-delta analysis in ETABS V6.
This method essentially treats the building as a simplified stick model to consider the P-Delta effect. It
is much faster than the iterative method. It does not capture local buckling as well as the iterative
method. This method works best if you have a single rigid diaphragm at each floor level though it also
works for other cases as well.
The reason we provide this method is to allow you to consider P-Delta in cases where you have not
specified gravity loads in your model. If you have specified gravity loads in your model, then in
general, we recommend that you use the Iterative Based on Load Cases option.
Iterative Based on Load Cases:
The load is computed from a specified combination of static load cases. This is called the P-Delta load
combination.
For example, the load may be the sum of a dead load case plus a fraction of a live load case. This
approach requires an iterative solution to determine the P-Delta effect upon the structure. This method
considers the P-Delta effect on an element- by-element basis. It captures local buckling effects better
than the non-iterative method. We recommend that you use this iterative method in all cases except
those where no gravity load is specified in your model.
 Iteration Controls: This area is active if you select the Iterative Based on Load Cases option
in the Method area of the dialog box. The Maximum Iterations item and the Relative
Tolerance -Displacements item are discussed in the subsection titled "Iterative Solution" in
Chapter 33 of ETABS V7 manual. Note that the maximum number of iterations specified is
the maximum number of additional analyses after the first analysis is run.

 P-Delta Load Combination: This area is active if you select the Iterative Based on Load
Cases option in the Method area of the dialog box. Here you specify the single load
combination to be used for the initial P-Delta analysis of the structure.
As an example, suppose that the building code requires the following load combinations to be
considered for design:
(1) 1.5 dead load
(2) 1.5 dead load + 1.5 live load
(3) 1.2 dead load + 0.6 live load + 1.2 wind load (or EQ)
(4) 1.2 dead load + 0.6 live load - 1.2 wind load (or EQ)
(5) 0.9 dead load + 1.5 wind load (or EQ)
(6) 0.9 dead load - 1.5 wind load (or EQ)
For this case, the P-Delta effect due to the overall sway of the structure can usually be accounted for,
conservatively, by specifying the P-Delta load combination to be 1.2 times dead load plus 0.5 times
live load. This will accurately account for this effect in load combinations 3 and 4 above, and will
conservatively account for this effect in load combinations 5 and 6. This P-Delta effect is not
generally important in load combinations 1 and 2 since there is no lateral load.
It is also possible to accurately account for the P-Delta effect due to the deformation of the members
between their ends in the ETABS analysis, but we do not recommend that you do this. Instead we
recommend that you account for this effect using factors in your design.
The ETABS design postprocessors assume this is what you have done and includes these factors,
where appropriate, in the design. If you did want to try and account for the P-Delta effect due to the
deformation of the members between their ends in the ETABS analysis then you should first break up
all of your columns into at least two objects between story levels. Then you should run each of the six
load cases above separately with a different P-Delta load combination for each. Again, it is
recommended that this effect be accounted for instead by using factors in your design as is done in the
ETABS design postprocessors. There are exceptions too and you must refer to the manual for more
details.
Notes:
In ETABS, program uses only one combination which is specified in Analyze > Set Analysis > Set P-
Delta Parameters. Program uses the same stiffness for all static load cases, response spectrum analysis
and time history analysis. Unlike SAP2000 where you can specify more than one P-delta
combinations, ETABS currently does not have this feature. Refer to the description below which
documents how P-delta analysis is used in ETABS.
We plan to add multiple P-delta analysis for ETABS v12 release which will be identical to SAP2000
program.
Q: What is P-δ analysis and its importance? How we can do that in ETABS?
A: Please see the image below which shows deformed column shape.

Here Δ corresponds to story sway which is always computed and δ corresponds to lateral sway at a
location within the column length occurring in a story. Usually δ is not computed directly, primarily
due to the reason that columns and walls are not meshed within the story. Another reason for not
computing these is that most design codes have a moment magnifier approach to increase the design
moments and that indirectly includes P-δ effect in design. However if you want to compute P-Δ as
well as P-δ effects both within same analysis then ETABS/SAP2000 can be used easily by using a
Non-Linear Static analysis option.
To capture both P-Δ and P-δ effects you should run multiple nonlinear static analysis cases
each representing full load design combinations. So for example for a plane frame when considering
just dead (D), notional loads from dead (ND), live (L), notional from live (NL) and only one direction
of wind (W) you will end up with the following nonlinear analysis cases:
1. 1.5D + 1.5ND
2. 1.5D - 1.5ND
3. 1.2D + 1.2ND + 1.2L + 1.2NL
4. 1.2D - 1.2ND + 1.2L - 1.2NL
5. 1.2D + 0.6L + 1.2W
6. 1.2D + 0.6L - 1.2W
7. 0.9D + 1.5W
8. 0.9D - 1.5W
9. 1.5D + 1.5 W
10. 1.5D – 1.5W
However in such a case walls as well as columns must be meshed within the story height. Wall
meshing can be specified by specifying automesh options for wall objects. For column meshing insert
nodes within the story height but avoid dividing a column in two or more elements.
When multiple non-linear static analyses are performed you can do design based on such analyses
results directly. However spectrum analysis is not possible in such a setup because it is linear.
On the other hand to capture P-Δ effect in an enveloping manner but not P-δ effect the following
Analysis cases are sufficient:
I. 1.2D + 1.2L as a nonlinear case

II. D as a linear case using the stiffness from I
III L as a linear case using the stiffness from I
IV. ND as a linear case using the stiffness from I
V. NL as a linear case using the stiffness from I
VI. W as a linear case using the stiffness from I
In this option dynamic analysis can be performed with stiffness at the end of analysis I.
It is left to the discretion of the engineer to determine which analysis would be suitable and then these
can be specified quickly in ETABS as mentioned above.
Recommended reading: Please see IS:800 2007 and AISC 360-05 codes for more details. Please also
refer to Direct Analysis Method (DAM) specified in AISC 360-05.
Q: Indian code gives no guidelines on second order analysis but other codes like ACI-318 give
detailed information and suggest that flexural stiffness of columns, beams and walls be reduced
to account for cracking. How we can do such a cracked section analysis for shear walls?
A: Flexural and axial behaviours 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 behaviour is
controlled by f12 property modifier. 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 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 member’s properties
modification factors to be used for lateral loads analysis. There is no recommendation for reducing the
GAshear. 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. If you apply the modifier to both f11 and f22,
it hardly affects the results.
Q: Please explain the importance of Eigen and Ritz vectors and when we need to use these?
A: SAP2000 and ETABS offer both exact Eigen vectors and Load-dependent Ritz (LDR vectors). As
stated in the CSI Analysis Reference Manual that is included with SAP2000 and ETABS:
 Eigenvector analysis determines the undamped free-vibration modes shapes and frequencies
of the system. These natural modes provide an excellent insight into the behavior of the
structure.
 Ritz-vector analysis seeks to find modes that are excited by a particular loading. Ritz vectors
can provide a better basis that do eigenvectors when used for response-spectrum or time-
history analyses that are based on modal superposition.
We recommend performing an Eigen analysis of the structure, since it can help to check behavior and
find modeling problems. The natural frequency information can also be important for understanding
where resonance can be expected with different types of loads.
For determining the response to horizontal ground acceleration, eigen modes are generally quite
efficient, although it may be necessary to include a missing-mass (residual-mass) mode to account for
high-frequency effects that are missed by the Eigen modes. Most common structural analysis
programs have this capability, as do SAP2000 and ETABS. The only drawback with Eigen analysis is
that it may be time consuming.
For vertical ground acceleration, or localized loading such as by machine vibration, eigen modes may
be much less efficient, and determining whether or not you have enough modes can be difficult. Load-

dependent Ritz vectors are very effective for this purpose, and have the advantage of always including
the missing-mass modes automatically. Even for horizontal ground excitation, Ritz vectors are more
efficiently computed and now widely used.
Mass participation is a common measure for determining whether or not you have enough modes.
However, it is only useful for ground acceleration, and does not give information about localized
response. SAP2000 and ETABS provide static and dynamic participation measures for other types of
loading as well. When determining convergence of localized response with respect to the number of
modes, Ritz vectors converge much faster and more uniformly than do Eigen vectors.
Load dependent Ritz vectors are well documented in the open literature (e.g., Wilson et al), in
standard finite-element textbooks (e.g., Cook et al), and in standard structural dynamics textbooks
(e.g., Chopra). Please let us know if you need detailed citations.
SAP2000 and ETABS let you, the engineer, determine the type of modes you feel are most
appropriate. In fact, you can calculate both types of modes, in the same model, even in the same
run while using SAP2000, and compare their behavior. SAP2000 and ETABS offer much
flexibility in the calculation of Eigen or Ritz modes, including the consideration of P-delta and other
nonlinear effects, modes at different stages of construction, and frequency shifts for specialized
loading.
When using Eigen vectors, you control the convergence tolerance. Orthogonality is strictly
maintained to within the accuracy of the machine (15 decimal digits). Sturm sequence checks are
performed and reported to avoid missing any Eigen vectors when using shifts. Internal accuracy
checks are performed and used to control the solution automatically. SAP2000 will detect and report
ill-conditioned systems, but will still produce eigen vectors that you can use to trace the source of the
modeling problem. Ritz vectors are not subject to convergence questions, but strict orthogonality of
the vectors is maintained as it is for eigen vectors.
Q: What is Scale Factor given in Response Spectrum Cases definition dialog box?
A: It should be noted that the spectrum ordinates defined using in-built IS:1893 code option as well
as other code options are normalised values. It means that these are without any units. These are the
values of spectral accelerations divided by acceleration due to gravity. So the spectrum must be
converted to a specific set of units which are used in the model. This is done by using a scale factor
with a value of acceleration due to gravity in the current units of your model. At the same time it must
be noted that the design spectrum of IS:1893 is actually MCE level spectrum and it must be reduced
by dividing it by a factor of 2R where R is response reduction factor. So in the first run the value of
scale factor should be SF=I*g/(2R) where I is importance factor. After first run please check the base
shear developing in the model and if the computed value of base shear is less than code specified
minimum base shear than enhance the value of scale factor used in the first run so that resulting base
shear would match with the code specified minimum value.
Q: How I can be sure that program computed EQ lateral loads meet the code given minimum
lateral load requirement?
A: You must use user defined time period in static lateral load definition form. Use code
recommended period and program will compute the static lateral load which will be same as code
recommended minimum lateral loads.
Q: Does ETABS amplify accidental torsional eccentricity to 1.5 times as required by IS:1893?
A: Currently it is not implemented for static loads. For dynamic analysis accidental torsional
eccentricity need not be enhanced and hence no further work is required if you are doing only a

spectrum analysis. However if you are doing a static analysis where you need to enhance accidental
torsion for the inherent torsional eccentricity then first compute the eccentricity in a story by seeing
the CM and CR locations and next workout the coordinate of the point which will define enhanced
eccentricity correctly. Finally define another quake type lateral load but use only user load options
and in the dialog box use new coordinate of point of application of load and the value of story shear.
Q: I am getting shear steel such 0.0812 and my units are KN-CM? What does it mean?
A: In current ETABS when a particular unit set is chosen then all subsequent information will be
displayed in the chosen units. In your case ETABS is displaying shear reinforcement area as cm2/cm.
So multiply it by 100 and you will get the corresponding value in cm2/m which in this case would be
8.12 cm2/m. You can now choose a suitable shear stirrup meeting this demand.
Q: How I can consider live load reduction in design of columns?
A: There are two things you need to do. First thing to be fixed is the type of load for live loads. It
should be of type “Reducible Live”. See the image below for details.
Figure 9: Define Reducible Live type Live Load
The other thing to be fixed is the Live Load reduction method which you want to use in your ETABS
model. This is done by using Options>Preferences>Live Load reduction. See the image below.

Figure 10: Choose Live Load Reduction Method and specify Reduction Factors
It is worth noting here that the live load analysis results will still be shown for full load but in design
of columns in all those combinations which have a live load component live load will be reduced in
accordance with the live load reduction factor assigned.
Q: There is an option for defining user defined lateral loads. What is the importance of this and
where it could be used?
A: User defined lateral loads is a convenient way to define lateral loads due wind or earthquake at a
diaphragm level, if the user has computed the lateral loads on his own separately. For example if you
are not satisfied with program computed torsional moment being applied due to eccentricity in CM
and CR then by studying CM and CR locations you can first work out the point where the applied
load would be causing the desired torsional moments and apply it as user defined load at that location.
In the same way user defined loads could be used to enhance story shear in case of soft story.
Q: Currently ETABS is not giving Story Stiffness. How it can be computed?
A: It is simple. Keep all points below the target story level as well as bottom node of the story level as
fixed and apply a horizontal load at CR location say 100 KN and check the lateral deflection at the
story level. Divide horizontal force by the lateral deflection computed and that is the story stiffness. It
must be emphasised here that for the purpose of identification of soft story you must model masonry
infilled frames by using a compression diagonal strut. Let us know if you want to have additional help
on this item.
Q: I have done the analysis and I want to check how much horizontal shear is attracted by a
group of shear walls and columns? How we can do that conveniently in ETABS?

A: This is easy. By using Display>Show Table>>Building Output Box checked, you can see the story
shears for all columns and walls etc. For any chosen load case or combination. However if you want
to capture the same but only for a group of walls and column then first make sure that One Story
option is chosen and then see the plan view of desired story and select such walls and columns as well
as their top level nodes and define a group for all these. Care should be taken that all points must be
present at the same level. Next using Define>Section Cut command define a section cut using the
previously defined group. Finally by using Display > Show Table option check the box for section cut
forces and also select the desired load case/combination and see the output table. The section cut
forces will include the summation of forces in the selected elements at the chosen node location.
Q: How I can have a circular and inclined grid system defined in ETABS?
A: ETABS by default defines an orthogonal grid system. This is based on the fact that all grids are
either parallel to Global X or Global Y directions. Editing of such an orthogonal grid system is very
convenient. However ETABS also gives an option of defining a sub-coordinate system and for doing
that use Edit>Edit Grid Data command and define a new coordinate system which could be a
Cartesian or Cylindrical coordinate system. There is an option in this command to locate the origin
and inclination of coordinate system with Global coordinate system.
For defining an inclined grid system you must convert the sub-coordinate system to of type General.
See the image below.
Next use Draw Line command and click on the indicated Type of Line Box and choose Gridline and
draw it at desired location. See the image below.
In general it will be helpful if you have two points previously defined to locate the inclined grid.

Q: I have several cantilever projections which I wish to model. How I can model these in
ETABS?
A: There are following modelling situations.
1. A flat slab is being modelled and it may or may not have periphery beams. In such cases you need
to model slab as shell type to capture the bending of slab. In that any cantilever slab can be modelled
as shell type with appropriate meshing.
2. A beam slab system is being modelled and in that a cantilever exists. In such a case two situations
are possible:
a) Model the internal slab panels as well as cantilever both of type shell and specify meshing. In such
a case load transfer will be appropriate but slab and beam both will be participating in bending and if
you want to design the beam for the resulting moments then slab should be designed from finite
element results. Alternatively you can choose to reduce the bending stiffness of slab by specifying
property modifier of M11, M22, M12 as 0.1 and that will reduce the moment retained by slab.
b) Internal slab is being modelled as membrane and in such a case you have two options
(i) Model the cantilever load manually by applying such a load to beam as partial UDL or point
load. In general in such a case torsion due to cantilever is not applied on beam and is ignored. This
works well for small span cantilevers.
(ii) Model the cantilever as shell with meshing and internal slab as membrane. This is inappropriate
as the equilibrium of cantilever moment at its supported end is not properly simulated and this will be
resisted only by torsion in the beam as the bending of internal slab is being ignored in the model.

Q: How we can apply thermal loading in ETABS?
A: Thermal loads can be applied on line as well as area objects due to uniform temperature change in
these elements. However in such a case you should not have any rigid diaphragm defined at the floor
level because in rigid diaphragm in-plane strains are suppressed and these are required to capture the
effect of thermal loads on the building. In general you will have to mesh the slab and that should have
a shell type property.
Q: I have used Replicate command with option of Mirror but the results are not expected?
What could be the reason?
A: Please check the orientation of columns in the mirrored objects and modify these suitably. After
that you should not have a problem.
Q: We can’t determine Open Structure Wind loads as well as wind loads by using Gust factor
method in ETABS?
A: Both these items will be given in next release as these items are in our wish list. Currently we
suggest that evaluate these forces on your own apply these as member loads or diaphragm level loads.
Q: How I can get the coordinates of Centre of Mass and Rigidity, Story shear, Mass
participation ratios etc.?
A: CM and CR values will be available if the diaphragm has been modelled as a rigid diaphragm.
Mass participation ratio will be computed if you are doing a dynamic analysis. Use Display>Show
Table option and in the next form use the options checked in the image below to get the desired
information from the program.
Figure 11: Show Table Options

Q: Can we design an arbitrarily shaped concrete column in ETABS?
A: Yes you can do that easily in ETABS. As a rule all column shapes other than rectangular and
circular should be defined using SD section property. In the SD section property you can define a
column shape graphically and can provide your own chosen steel bar layout.
Q: Is there any manual available for section designer?
A: Yes a manual is available and if you are not having it in the manuals folder of ETABS installation
directory then send us a mail and we will send you a PDF copy at no charge.
Q: I have heavy column at the wall end like a dumbbell. I have defined it in the model but in the
wall design these end column are not coming.
A: You need to assign a pier name to the column as well. End columns located at wall end and wall
will be assigned same pier name and then program will include the columns also in wall design.
Q: Should we define multi legged walls as a single pier or as different wall piers?
A: It should be clearly understood that the wall forces don’t change by pier labelling scheme adopted
by the user. If you name the wall piers so that each wall segment is having a different label then you
get a conservative design as it will take care of localised higher axial forces which might be present in
the wall segment. When multi legged wall core is labelled as a single wall pier then the wall pier is
designed as a single section even if it is of a very complex shape. Program assumes that axial force is
uniform over this section. This assumption may not be acceptable for those cases where one leg of
wall is heavily loaded due to gravity loads. We suggest that use both methods. Use the following
steps:
1. Assign different pier names to all wall segments and work out approximate steel area
required for flexure.
2. Create sections with your chosen steel arrangement using the section designer keeping ease
of construction in mind.
3. Perform section check and make sure the section passes.
4. Assemble all different wall segment section and define a new 3-D wall section with your
chosen steel arrangement.
5. Rename all component wall segments of wall core as a single pier and do section check. It
should pass in flexure.
These steps will ensure that the shear wall possesses adequate capacity for local as well as global
behaviour. Design for shear is always done for individual legs and provide shear steel for each leg.
Q: How program is working out Boundary Element widths? Can we define our own chosen
width?
A: Please see Shear Wall design manual for Indian code where it is neatly explained. Yes you can
define your own boundary element widths.
Q: How we can connect different beam elements resting on a large column element but centre
line of beams are not aligned in the same line?

A: If column is very large in size and beams are much less stiff and your judgement is that a good
rotational restraint exists to beam end then in such a case connect the end of beam with column
centroid using a rigid beam element. This will ensure that a fully continuous connection exists
between all beams and column. But even then some care is needed in that. We suggest before taking
up any large scale modelling that way, first make a single story model which simulates all different
modelling situations you want to model and run the analysis of smaller model and check if the
resulting forces are reasonable.
At the other extreme there is the problem where column is relatively much thinner say a size of
230X1500 and here beams of usual size say 230X600 are provided aligned in the shorter column
direction but connected at extreme ends of column which are 1270 mm apart. In such a case column
centroid and beam centre lines are not aligned. Connecting the column and beams with a rigid beam
to unify the beam and column connection will be a serious mistake in this case. If it is done that way
then very significant –ve moments will develop at beam end resting on column for which the column
can’t be designed due to its shorter dimension. Such cases are better modelled by modelling the
column using a wall element.
Q: How we can do a moving load analysis in ETABS? I have a podium slab for which I need to
consider the moving load due a vehicle.
A: Though currently ETABS doesn’t have an automated moving load analysis but still you can do a
moving load analysis in ETABS. Please see a similar question in SAFE FAQs and use the same
method for ETABS too. In our other software SAP2000 a complete moving load analysis based on
influence lines and multi step static loads is available. In more complex cases where multiple vehicles
are moving on the building system floor, use of SAP2000 will be preferred. In simpler cases the
method as given in SAFE FAQs can be used.
Q: I have to terminate a wall of about 2 m width on a wide beam which is supported on thick
walls. How I can model such a situation?
A: Such an instance of a wide transfer girder can be modelled using shell object property. Specify
adequate meshing and try to have a matching mesh for a the slab area representing the girder with
walls above as well as below. If you are attending a seminar in which these notes are given please ask
your instructor to show such a model to make this concept clear.
Q: I have defined an envelope type load combination and steel computed is coming very high.
What could be the reason behind that?
A: You need to understand that ETABS/SAP/SAFE will do the design for each design combination
separately and after that enveloping of max +ve and max –ve steel will be done. So there is no need to
define an envelope type combination by the user for doing the design and in fact it is incorrect to do
that. In envelope type combination it is possible that max moment, shear, axial forces and torsion may
not be from the same combination and in such a case the forces can’t develop concurrently and hence
design will not be consistent with actual response.
Q: I am confused about section cut forces. Should these be drawn using Draw Section cut
command or should these be defined using groups and section cuts?
A: In general there are two methods for the section cuts. In one method you can choose elements
(beam and area) as well as the nodes for which you need the section cut forces and define these as one
single group. Next define a section cut based on this group. The other option is to view any stress

diagram and draw the section cut line and program will give you the section cut forces along the
drawn line.
1) For a pre-defined group where you select the elements and points, program knows how to compute
the forces sum from the selected elements and where to compute it from the location of chosen nodes
therefore Define > Section Cut results will always be worked out for the node locations for the
elements present in the defined group.
2) For Draw > Draw Section Cut option, you are drawing a line on the elements you are interested in
to obtain the summation of forces. If you draw you section cut on elements then again this is very
obvious that you want to integrate the forces from few elements and the section Cut results should be
same as Item 1 above. However there is a tolerance issue which you should know. In the example
below a line is drawn on the those elements only whose section cut forces are desired.
However if the same line is drawn on the desired node location then a few possibility exist ass shown
and discussed below:
When a section cut line is drawn along thick black line in the image below then a few possibilities
exist. The node location is shown highlighted by X in the image below. When we mentioned that
there is a tolerance issue we meant that program can select elements shown with letter O and compute
section cut forces for selected nodes or program can do summation of forces for the elements shown
with letter Y. Program can also select element marked with letter G or B.

What we want to emphasize here is that the choice is not unique because you have drawn it at
boundary of several elements. To address this issue draw a line at the element (not at joint as program
may be confused to decide which elements belong to the section cut when sections are drawn at
points. You should cut the elements whose forces are to be summed along a plane and then request the
section cut results at point centroids.
Q: How we can model a MIVAN system of walls in ETABS?
A: MIVAN system is in fact a kind of formwork for a rapid construction of multi story building
systems. In such a system beams are not used at all in most cases and all slabs are simple flat plates.
Such a building system can be modelled in ETABS rather easily using wall and floor objects.
However take a note that slab and walls both participate in bending when subjected to loads. Hence
for a realistic modelling, floors and walls both should be modelled using shell type property. Floor as
well as wall objects should be meshed adequately. But the problem with these models lies elsewhere.
In such building systems almost always walls will be terminated on heavy beams and columns to
create large uninterrupted areas for parking purpose in lower stories. In such models, adequate
modelling of walls, transfer girders and supporting columns is a critical issue. In general such cases
should be investigated adequately at a more fundamental level by checking stresses developing in
walls. You may often require to model columns and transfer girders both using wall elements to
achieve a proper connectivity with walls above. Such models will actually reveal the flow of loads
when principal stresses are plotted in ETABS. In most such models staged analysis will also be
needed. We have also noticed that sometimes in some deep girders which may have depth equal to the
depth of story or even a higher depth arching action may be important which need be evaluated
correctly to produce safe designs.
Q: I have defined slabs and thickened area objects as drops but SAFE is not displaying
punching shear check. What could be wrong in my model?
A: SAFE 12 checks punching shear twice. Once for punching of column through the drop and the
other is punching of drop through the slab. As a general rule don’t mesh the slab type object on your
own and draw the drop type object above the slab type object. That way program will be able to trace
punching perimeters required for both kind of punching checks. The other issue is that the design
algorithm assumes that you have one drop element for each column. Hence if you have a drop type
object connected to several column then program can’t do drop to slab punching check and in such
cases thicker drop type object should be converted to slab type and program will only do a check for
punching of column through slab.
Q: What is moment integration in SAFE and which method is used?
A: Finite element analysis produces output in the form of distributed moments and in-plane stresses as
well as out of plane shears. This kind of output is not conductive for doing a quick design of slabs.
Hence a Moment Integration method is available in SAFE 12 which converts these distributed finite
element forces in strip forces. The design strips have to be defined by the user using his/her
engineering judgement and program will give total forces resisted by the design strip. This avoids
otherwise time consuming interpretation of finite element output. The additional advantage is that the
effect of torsional moment in finite elements is automatically included in design moments reported for
the strips. Currently Wood Armer moment integration scheme is available in SAFE.
Q: How we can analyse a slab for moving load in SAFE? I have a podium slab which is to be
designed for vehicular load.
A: This item is in our wish list and a completely automated moving load analysis option will be
available in next release of SAFE. However in the meantime you can use the following method.
A SAFE model file can be requested from our end by sending us a mail. In this model for the purpose
of demonstration a moving load represented by 4 wheels is moved along the design strip CSA3. Two
rows of joints have been created at a suitable interval and at any given instant of time only two pairs
of joints placed next to each other are loaded by the vehicle load. It is tacitly assumed that 2 pairs of
nodes are enough for representing a vehicle load and vehicle is moving symmetrically on the grid and
vehicle wheels are maintaining identical distance from the central grid. If you need more points then
you need to keep a track of all the points and how these are to be loaded at any time instant. We have
assumed that speed of the vehicle is 1m/sec and hence for a time step of 1 sec we need 25 pairs of
points for the vehicle to move from one end to the other completely. At any one instant only 4 points
representing the wheel load are used for applying the load of vehicle. Next we have defined 24
different load patterns and each pattern will have load for vehicle for a particular time step. See the
image below. Here highlighted dots show the vehicle load for a particular time step. See the
instructions in the image below and open the model and simulate same thing on your desktop to get a
feeling of this.

Figure 12: Define Nodes where vehicle response is to be computed
Next we have defined a load combination "move_comb" of Envelope Type having load patterns
LPAT1 to LPAT24 with a scale factor of 1.0. You can choose a scale factor higher than 1 to include
effect of impact. Next see strip forces for the load combination "move_comb" first for maximum.
This gives the max. positive moment for the strip for moving load.
Figure 13: See strip moments for Envelope type combination (+ve moment above)

Next see strip forces for the load combination "move_comb" first for minimum. This gives the max.
negative moment for the strip for moving load. So at any section you need to design the strip for max.
-ve and max. +ve both.
Figure 14: See strip moments for Envelope type combination (-ve moment above)
Currently we can do moving load analysis using this simple method.
A word of caution:
You need to mesh the slab at your defined points. This can be done by selecting the points added by
you and select the option as given in the image below. This will ensure that slab is meshed at your
defined points. If you want to have more refined results then you need to define more points at a
closer spacing and apply the loads. You need not do manual meshing in such a case and when you
want to investigate some other area for same vehicle load simply select the points defined by you and
do replication for the new location and remove older defined points and then see the strip results for
the new location.

Figure 15: Automesh the area object at defined nodes in SAFE
In Design there is a small issue and you should be aware of that. In envelope combinations program
will first do the enveloping and then moments and torsion are combined. This should be noted that in
moving load case as shown above max torsion and moments may come from different load patterns in
an envelope which may not be occurring concurrently. So envelope type design combination should
not be used in design rather define a separate design combination on your own combining gravity and
vehicle live load along with any other live load to which the slab system is to be designed and perform
design for each moving load position separately.
Q: How we can setup cracked section analysis in SAFE v12?

A: There are two types of cracked section analysis i.e., Immediate Cracked Deflection and Long-
Term Cracked deflection accounting the creep and shrinkage effects.
In SAFE v12, cracked section analysis can be setup using two different methods which are described
as follows:
1) Apply a single load pattern in load case and start another case continues From State at End of
Nonlinear Case.... For example, adding DEAD, SDEAD and LIVE load case for performing cracked
section analysis creates the following three cases:
a. Add DEAD Load case using Nonlinear (Cracked) started from Zero Initial Condition.
b. Add SDEAD Load case using Nonlinear (Cracked) started from using From State at End of
Nonlinear Case "DEAD".
c. Add LIVE Load case using Nonlinear (Cracked) started from using From State at End of

Nonlinear Case "SDEAD".
DEAD load case predicts the cracking from zero initial condition when no load was present and
computes the cracking due to application of DEAD load pattern. Adding SDEAD in other case staring
From State at End of Nonlinear Case "DEAD" uses the stiffness at the end of DEAD load case and
computes the additional deflection due to SDEAD case. The reported deflection shows the total
deflection due to DEAD plus SDEAD case. However, this method is unable to recognize the increase
in DEAD load deflection due to increase in cracking when SDEAD load is added. Therefore this
method is not recommended.
2) The recommended method for computing cracked section analysis is to apply all load patterns in a
single load case and use the Crack analysis or Crack Long-Term Analysis Option as discussed below:
Immediate Cracked Deflection:
Apply all loads (i.e. DEAD + SDEAD + Live) in a single load and use the Crack Analysis option.
Long-Term Cracked Deflection:
The creep and shrinkage effects are only applicable for sustained type loading i.e., DEAD, SDEAD
and a portion of LIVE load (in case of Warehouse, Stadium etc.) if applicable. The analysis is divided
into two category cases i.e. a cracked section analysis which determines the incremental deflection
due to nonsustain portion of LIVE load and the long-term cracked analysis which includes the
sustained type of loading including creep and shrinkage effects.
A 25% Live load is assumed to be of sustained type in the example shown below:
Case 1: Short term load with short term concrete modulus (DEAD + SDEAD + ΨsLIVE) where Ψs =
1.0 (i.e. Crack analysis)
Case 2: Permanent load with short term concrete modulus (DEAD + SDEAD + ΨLLIVE) where ΨL =
0.25 (i.e. Crack analysis). Use ΨL = 0 if 100 percent of LIVE load is non sustained type of load.
Case 3: Permanent load with long-term concrete modulus plus creep and shrinkage (DEAD + SDEAD
+ ΨLLIVE) where ΨL = 0.25 (i.e. Long-Term Cracked analysis with creep and shrinkage)
The long term deflection is the combination of Case 3 + (Case 1- Case 2)
The difference due to Case 1 and Case 2 represent the incremental deflection due to non-sustained
loading without accounting creep and shrinkage for fully cracked structure.
Q: How we can setup Nonlinear (Allow Uplift) analysis in SAFE 12?
A: When foundations are subjected to gravity as well as lateral loads and overturning moments are
large it is possible that in a particular load combination soil develops tension. In real life soil can’t
sustain any tension and it will simply separate from the foundation slab and hence the analysis results
with soil under tension are not suitable for design. In such an instance the problem must be solved by
considering nonlinear (allow uplift) analysis option available in SAFE 12. It must be clearly
understood that every single load pattern will not be acting alone and hence a nonlinear (allow uplift)
analysis should not be carried out for each load pattern separately rather all those load patterns which
are acting together must be specified in one single nonlinear (allow uplift) type load case. You can
define as many such cases as you need.

DISCLAIMER:
CONSIDERABLE TIME, EFFORT AND EXPENSE HAVE GONE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THIS DOCUMENT. THE INFORMATION GIVEN HERE HAS BEEN USED BY ENGINEERS
RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS FAQ LIST. HOWEVER THE USER ACCEPTS
AND UNDERSTANDS THAT NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY THE
ENGINEERS RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING THIS DOCUMENT OR BY COMPUTERS AND
STRUCTURES INC. BERKELEY, CA, U.S.A., OR BY CSIESPL NEW DELHI REGARDING
THE ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
DOCUMENT. THE USER MUST EXPLICITLY UNDERSTAND THE VARIOUS POINTS
EXPLAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT AND MUST INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE RESULTS.
THE OPINION AND VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE THOSE OF THE
AUTHORS OF THIS DOCUMENT AND THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED
RIGOROUSLY BY THE DEVELOPERS. THE INFORMATION IS BEING GIVEN TO THE USER
WITH THE OBJECTIVE THAT HE/SHE WILL FIND IT USEFUL.
CONTACT US:
If you have any doubt or if you have any other query then you can contact us by sending us a mail to
support@csiespl.com. However please don’t forget to include your company’s name and phone no.
CSI Engineering Software Pvt. Ltd.

H-31, Second Floor
NDSE Part-1
New Delhi 110049
Phone +91 11 41646528, +919811927135

Etabs Faq

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Etabs Faq

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Few General Queries on ETABS/SAFE

Q: What are constraints?

Q: Please describe the Floor modelling and Diaphragms briefly?

Floor may behave as a Rigid Diaphragm:

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 1

Q: Is rigid diaphragm modelling essential?

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 2

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 3

Q: What is the importance of Line Constraints?

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 4

Figure 1: Line Constraint Option for modelling of mismatched area elements.

Q : Is it possible to provide a partial rotational stiffness to a beam end ?

Ki = Rotational spring stiffness of partially restrained connection at end i.

Q : What is the utility of property modifier?

Q : Should the shear walls be meshed?

(a) Incorrect Meshing (b) Correct Meshing

Figure 2: Meshing of Wall Objects

Figure 3: Wall Meshing

Figure 4: Wall Meshing in the zone of Stiffness Change

Q : Will it be OK if shear walls is always meshed?

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 7

Q: While running a model in ETABS, it is reporting several numerical instability warnings.

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 8

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 9

Q: Can we change the numbering of Beams and Columns?

Q: How I can select line/area objects based on their labels?

Q: How I can locate a specific element in the model?

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 10

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 11

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 12

Q: Is it possible to avoid computation of effective length factors at all?

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 13

Q: How we can do a “Good” P-Delta Analysis?

(a) Undeformed Shape (b) Deformed Shape

Figure 6: Column under combined axial force and horizontal shear.

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 14

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 15

In matrix form these two equations can be written as:

For a 2D frame element standard result of geometric stiffness is given below.

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 16

Q: Could you please explain P-Delta analysis parameters?

Non-iterative Based on Mass:

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 17

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 18

I. 1.2D + 1.2L as a nonlinear case

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 20

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 21

Q: How I can consider live load reduction in design of columns?

Figure 9: Define Reducible Live type Live Load

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 22

Q: Currently ETABS is not giving Story Stiffness. How it can be computed?

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 23

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 24

A: There are following modelling situations.

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 25

Figure 11: Show Table Options

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 26

Q: Is there any manual available for section designer?

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 27

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 28

ETABS and SAFE FAQ: CSIESPL Ph: 09811927135 Page 29

Q: How we can model a MIVAN system of walls in ETABS?

Q: What is moment integration in SAFE and which method is used?