Modeling cracked behavior of shear walls in ETABS

Flexural and axial behaviors for shell wall elements can be modified in ETABS by usingeither f11
or f22 property modifiers, depending on the orientation of your local axes. Theshear behavior is
controlled by f12 property modifier. The terms f11 or f22 would correspondto modifications of
EI or EA and f12 would correspond to modifications to GA shear. Thecode recommendations in
ACI318-05, Section 10.11 are related to slenderness effects whereflexural 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. The
re is norecommendation for reducing the GA shear. Modifiers for f12 can be used
wheredeterioration of shear stiffness is expected.The above discussion applies when the local
axes 1 and 2 of the shear wall area object areeither vertical or horizontal. This is under user
control. When drawing walls in ETABS, thedefault is to have the 1 axis horizontal and the 2 axis
vertical. This means that the flexuralmodifier for EI should be applied to f22 for wall piers and to
f11 for spandrels.
The designer should keep in mind the following:
If the factored moments and shears from an analysis based on the moment of inertia of
a wall,taken equal to 0.70Ig, indicate that the wall will crack in flexure, based on the modulus
of rupture (fr=0.62*sqrt(f'c)), the analysis should be repeated with I =0.35Ig in those
storieswhere cracking is predicted using factored loads.
robertoo
02-14-2011, 12:55 PMdear hussein,do u mean that we should modify only the f11 or only the
f22 or both.thanksss
hussein.rida
02-15-2011, 12:30 AMDear robertoo,We can summarize the followings:1. For shell elements
pier-shear walls with default orientation of local axes, the mainmodifier affects directly on
flexural stiffness "EI" is "f22".2. For shell elements spandrel- beam with default orientation of
local axes, the mainmodifier affects directly on flexural stiffness "EI" is "f11".ACI318-
08 code declared in its commentary “R.8.8.2“ that the modulus of shear
modulus may be taken as 0.4Ec, so the shear stiffness modifiers "f12" could bereduced as well.

In general, we can use the following stiffness modifiers for pier-shear walls:f11=1, and
f22=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.7 for un-cracked walls.f11=1, and f22=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.35 for
cracked walls.For spandrel shell-modeled beams:f22=1, and f11=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.35For
shell-modeled deep wall spandrel-outriggers under high level of horizontal and
verticalstresses:f11=f22=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.35Sometimes, the designer may go lower than
those values of stiffness modifiers mentioned incode. This decision depends on designer's
judgement on the degree of cracking and theexpected degradation in element's stiffness
under the cyclic loading and level of developedstresses.It is good to highlight the followings:1.
Against the expected, ACI318-08 code doesn't discuss the issue of reducing theflexural stiffness
modifier under chapter "21" adopted for Earthquake ResistanceStructures, even though this
issue is quite related to the ductility and design of structures under the attack of earthquake
waves.However ACI code discuss this issue under the clause of slenderness effect
incompression members, and to be more specific, when it talks about the design
of long/slender columns which are extremely affected by the second
order displacement/moment result from lateral load such wind & earthquake load. In
thisregard: it is so clear that reducing the flexural stiffness will lead to increase the
lateraldisplacement caused by lateral load and then increasing the second order momenteffect
"P-Delta" called-phenomena.2. Reducing the flexural stiffness affects directly on structure
stability index (equation10-10 in ACI318-08).3. Ductility of structure may measure by the degree
of flexural cracking takes placeunder the reversal/cyclic seismic load.These cracks grow up from
cycle to the other result in
degradation in element’s
stiffness. And for high-ductile special structures the degree of degradation quitediffers from this
observed for low-ductile structures. However ACI code releases upto 2005 edition have no such
distinction in the value of stiffness modifiers betweenspecial, intermediate and ordinary
structures, whereas the latest edition ACI318-08
start show such difference as shown on equations “10
-
8” & “10
-
9”.