Jump to content
  • Welcome to SEFP!

    Welcome!

    Welcome to our community forums, full of great discussions about Structural Engineering. Please register to become a part of our thriving group or login if you are already registered.

Eigenvalue 3 was found out of sequence and Negative Axial Force for Steel Column Secion in Etabs


Leong Shi Ming
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Hi. I am a student and recently I started my first project on Etabs to model a  steel structure. I had faced some problems therefore I seek for your valuable advice. The problems are:

1) When I have done the analysis, there was a warning-“ Eigenvalue 3 was found out of sequence.” popped out.

2) Also when I started steel frame design, I found out that the axial force in the column is in negative value and some of them showing red colour.

May I know what exactly the problem is and how to resolve it? The Etabs file is attached below. I hope that someone can help me to clear my doubt. Thank you.

 

RUNNING ANALYSIS AS A SEPARATE PROCESS

 USING THE STANDARD SOLVER (PROVIDES COMPLETE INSTABILITY INFORMATION)

 NUMBER OF JOINTS                          =        1610

    WITH RESTRAINTS                        =         225

    WITH MASS                              =        1604

 NUMBER OF FRAME/TENDON ELEMENTS           =        1435

 NUMBER OF SHELL ELEMENTS                  =        1132

 NUMBER OF CONSTRAINTS/WELDS               =           3

 NUMBER OF LOAD PATTERNS                   =           7

 NUMBER OF ACCELERATION LOADS              =           9

 NUMBER OF LOAD CASES                      =           8

 NUMBER OF MASS SOURCES                    =           2

 ADDRESSABLE PHYSICAL MEMORY (RAM)         =       7.672 GB

 PARALLELIZATION OF ANALYSIS OPERATIONS:

 (Env. variable SAPFIRE_NUM_THREADS        =           0)

 NUMBER OF THREADS: STATE (AUTOMATIC)      =           2

 NUMBER OF THREADS: STIFFNESS (AUTOMATIC)  =           2

 NUMBER OF THREADS: EVENT (AUTOMATIC)      =           2

 NUMBER OF THREADS: MOVE (AUTOMATIC)       =           2

 NUMBER OF THREADS: RESPONSE (AUTOMATIC)   =           2

 NUMBER OF THREADS: SOLVE (AUTOMATIC)      =           2

 NUMBER OF THREADS: FORM (AUTOMATIC)       =           2

 E L E M E N T   F O R M A T I O N                                      12:32:51

 NUMBER OF COUPLED CONSTRAINT EQUATIONS    =           0

 L I N E A R   E Q U A T I O N   S O L U T I O N                        12:32:51

 FORMING STIFFNESS AT ZERO (UNSTRESSED) INITIAL CONDITIONS

 USING MASS SOURCE: MsSrc1

 TOTAL NUMBER OF EQUILIBRIUM EQUATIONS     =        8976

 APPROXIMATE "EFFECTIVE" BAND WIDTH        =         128

 NUMBER OF EQUATION STORAGE BLOCKS         =           1

 MAXIMUM BLOCK SIZE (8-BYTE TERMS)         =     1147837

 SIZE OF STIFFNESS FILE(S)                 =       8.792 MB

 NUMBER OF EQUATIONS TO SOLVE              =        8976

 ---------------------------------

 BASIC STABILITY CHECK FOR LINEAR LOAD CASES:

    NUMBER OF NEGATIVE STIFFNESS EIGENVALUES SHOULD BE ZERO FOR STABILITY.

    (NOTE: FURTHER CHECKS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS DEEMED NECESSARY,

     SUCH AS REVIEWING EIGEN MODES FOR MECHANISMS AND RIGID-BODY MOTION)

    NUMBER OF NEGATIVE EIGENVALUES         =           0,  OK.

 ---------------------------------

 L I N E A R   S T A T I C   C A S E S                                  12:32:52

 USING STIFFNESS AT ZERO (UNSTRESSED) INITIAL CONDITIONS

 TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES TO SOLVE            =           7

 NUMBER OF CASES TO SOLVE PER BLOCK        =           7

 LINEAR STATIC CASES TO BE SOLVED:

 CASE: DEAD

 CASE: LIVE

 CASE: WINDX

 CASE: WINDY

 CASE: MANSORY

 CASE: FINISHES

 CASE: ~LLRF

 E I G E N   M O D A L   A N A L Y S I S                                12:32:52

 CASE: MODAL1

 USING STIFFNESS AT ZERO (UNSTRESSED) INITIAL CONDITIONS

 USING MASS SOURCE: MsSrc1

 NUMBER OF STIFFNESS DEGREES OF FREEDOM    =        8976

 NUMBER OF MASS DEGREES OF FREEDOM         =        2782

 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF EIGEN MODES SOUGHT      =          12

 MINIMUM NUMBER OF EIGEN MODES SOUGHT      =           1

 NUMBER OF RESIDUAL-MASS MODES SOUGHT      =           0

 NUMBER OF SUBSPACE VECTORS USED           =          24

 RELATIVE CONVERGENCE TOLERANCE            =    1.00E-09

 FREQUENCY SHIFT  (CENTER) (CYC/TIME)      =     .000000

 FREQUENCY CUTOFF (RADIUS) (CYC/TIME)      =  -INFINITY-

 ALLOW AUTOMATIC FREQUENCY SHIFTING        =         YES

 Original stiffness at shift : EV= 0.0000000E+00, f=     .000000, T=  -INFINITY-

 Number of eigenvalues below shift =      0

 Forming stiffness, new shift: EV= 1.0000000E-03, f=    0.005033, T=  198.691765

 Number of eigenvalues below shift =    251

 Forming stiffness, new shift: EV= 5.0000000E-04, f=    0.003559, T=  280.992589

 Number of eigenvalues below shift =    146

 Forming stiffness, new shift: EV= 2.5000000E-04, f=    0.002516, T=  397.383531

 Number of eigenvalues below shift =     83

 Forming stiffness, new shift: EV= 1.2500000E-04, f=    0.001779, T=  561.985178

 Number of eigenvalues below shift =     47

 Found mode      1 of     12:  EV= 1.2519803E-04, f=    0.001781, T=  561.540539

 Found mode      2 of     12:  EV= 1.2519803E-04, f=    0.001781, T=  561.540539

 Forming stiffness, new shift: EV= 6.2500000E-05, f=    0.001258, T=  794.767061

 Number of eigenvalues below shift =     27

 Forming stiffness, new shift: EV= 3.1250000E-05, f=    0.000890, T=    1123.970

 Number of eigenvalues below shift =     14

 Forming stiffness, new shift: EV= 1.5625000E-05, f=    0.000629, T=    1589.534

 Number of eigenvalues below shift =      2

 Forming stiffness, new shift: EV= 7.8125000E-06, f=    0.000445, T=    2247.941

 Number of eigenvalues below shift =      0

 Found mode      3 of     12:  EV= 1.2916113E-05, f=    0.000572, T=    1748.292

 

 * * * W A R N I N G * * *

 EIGENVALUE           3 WAS FOUND OUT OF SEQUENCE

 Found mode      4 of     12:  EV= 1.2916113E-05, f=    0.000572, T=    1748.292

 Found mode      5 of     12:  EV= 2.3206534E-05, f=    0.000767, T=    1304.292

 Found mode      6 of     12:  EV= 2.3206534E-05, f=    0.000767, T=    1304.292

 Found mode      7 of     12:  EV= 2.3217637E-05, f=    0.000767, T=    1303.980

 Found mode      8 of     12:  EV= 2.3217637E-05, f=    0.000767, T=    1303.980

 Found mode      9 of     12:  EV= 2.3992956E-05, f=    0.000780, T=    1282.738

 Found mode     10 of     12:  EV= 2.3992956E-05, f=    0.000780, T=    1282.738

 Found mode     11 of     12:  EV= 2.9689614E-05, f=    0.000867, T=    1153.128

 Found mode     12 of     12:  EV= 2.9689614E-05, f=    0.000867, T=    1153.128

 NUMBER OF EIGEN MODES FOUND               =          12

 NUMBER OF ITERATIONS PERFORMED            =          48

 NUMBER OF STIFFNESS SHIFTS                =           8

 

 

 

 

Red column.PNG

Etabs problem file.EDB Column report.pdf

Edited by Leong Shi Ming
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2022 at 11:26 PM, Leong Shi Ming said:

1) When I have done the analysis, there was a warning-“ Eigenvalue 3 was found out of sequence.” popped out

Leong,

Here is the description of this error:

Quote

Eigenvalue was found out of sequence

The purpose of this page is to explain the warning message "Eigenvalue was found out of sequence".

Modes are found in order of increasing distance of frequency from the shift. If lower frequency is found after a larger frequency, the program display the "out of sequence" warning. Please note that this is a warning, not an error, and may occur if the structure is sensitive to instabilities.

A structure that is unstable when unloaded will have some modes with zero frequency. These modes may correspond to rigid- body motion of an inadequately supported structure, or to mechanisms that may be present within the structure. It is not possible to compute the static response of such a structure. However, by using a small negative shift, the lowest- frequency vibration modes of the structure, including the zero- frequency in stability modes, can be found.

Please check your model for instability although the above does say that it is a warning not an error but that is my suggestion.

On 2/18/2022 at 11:26 PM, Leong Shi Ming said:

2) Also when I started steel frame design, I found out that the axial force in the column is in negative value and some of them showing red colour.

Negative force in column means that you column is in tension. This is common condition. For lateral loads, one side columns are normally in tension and other side in compression.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/27/2022 at 10:12 AM, UmarMakhzumi said:

Leong,

Here is the description of this error:

Please check your model for instability although the above does say that it is a warning not an error but that is my suggestion.

Negative force in column means that you column is in tension. This is common condition. For lateral loads, one side columns are normally in tension and other side in compression.

Thanks.

Hi, Mr. Umar. Thanks for your reply to clear my doubt. May I know is there any quick way to locate the part causing the eigenvalue instability problem? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2022 at 12:56 AM, Leong Shi Ming said:

Hi, Mr. Umar. Thanks for your reply to clear my doubt. May I know is there any quick way to locate the part causing the eigenvalue instability problem? 

Hi Leong Shi Ming,

The easiest way is to look at your "Joint Displacements" and hone down on joints where displacements is very very big.

Also, checking displaced / deformation shape helps.

Hope that helps.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • Hi there,
      I am interested in performing "Performance Based Design" for a 20 story building. 
      I'll be performing "Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis" for my model. Until now, I have decided to go with "Displacement Co-efficient method". I will be using ETABS 2017 for performing Pushover Analysis. While assigning plastic hinges, I have an option of using ASCE 41-17 (Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing buildings". I would like to know what would be a better estimate for relative distances for plastic hinges in case of beams, columns. Any input concerning assignment of hinges to beams, columns and shear walls is highly appreciated. Normally it's taken 0.05 and 0.95 or 0.1 and 0.9. What's your opinion on this?
      Secondly, it would be great if someone can recommend me a book or some good source to understand how to characterize building using performance levels. Any sort of help is appreciated.
      I have recently graduated and joined a structural design firm, so kindly guide me, considering me a beginner.

       
      • 2 replies
    • *SEFP Consistent Design*<br style="background-color:#ffffff; color:#272a34; font-size:14px; text-align:start">*Pile Design*<br style="background-color:#ffffff; color:#272a34; font-size:14px; text-align:start">*Doc No: 10-00-CD-0007*<br style="background-color:#ffffff; color:#272a34; font-size:14px; text-align:start">*Date: April 16, 2018*

      1.1. FUNCTION OF JOINT

      Beam-column joint must transfer the forces, such as moment, shear and torsion, transferred by the beam to the column so that the structure can maintain its integrity to carry loads for which it is designed.

      Another function of the beam-column joint is to help the structure to dissipate seismic forces so that it can behave in a ductile manner.

      1.2.WHY DO WE CARE

      During an extreme seismic event, the code-based structure is expected to maintain its load-carrying capacity for gravity loads even after the structure deforms into inelastic range so that it does not pose any life safety hazard. Hence, the joint can go through significant degradation of strength and stiffness, and if it fails in shear, or anchorage, the life-safety objective of code cannot be achieved.

      1.3.CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE


      1.4.THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR BEAM COLUMN JOINT

      Longitudinal bars of beams, or slab, must be able to develop their yield stress, so that the beam/slab can transfer moment to joint. It means that longitudinal bars must have adequate development length for hooked bars. This implies that the size of the column must be such that bars can develop their tensile forces. If bars can transfer moment, they can also transfer shear as far as monolithic construction is concerned.


      The shear strength of the joint must enable the transfer of moment and shear through it.



      The joint should be Constructible: Congestion of reinforcement is the main concern.

      1.5.DESIGN SHEAR FOR BEAM COLUMN JOINT

      The design shear for beam-column joint depends upon the relative strength of beam and column at the joint.

       
      • 4 replies
    • *Comments/Observations regarding modelling in ETABS*

      *Doc No: 10-00-CD-0006*

      *Date: May 06, 2017*

      Some of the observations made during extraction of results from ETABS (v 9.7.4), for design of reinforced concrete members, are being share in this article.,

      1) Minimum Eccentricity

      ETABS always considers the minimum eccentricity for selecting the design moment of columns irrespective of the probable behavior of the column, whether short or long column. See section 10.10.6.5 and its commentary of ACI 318-08 which deals with minimum eccentricity of long columns. You should always check the design moments that ETABS uses for columns if you want to bring down the cost of construction.

      2) Unbraced/ Braced Preference

      ETABS always performs analysis of frame as if it is un-braced. You should investigate if the storey under consideration is braced, or un-braced (10.10.5.2), and decide appropriate design moments of columns.

      3) Time Period

      ETABS has a tendency to select a time period of the building that is considerably less than the value obtained by the approximate method, Method A, of the section 1630.2.2  of UBC 97. To quote the FEMA 451 document: ''Because this formula is based on lower bound regression analysis of measured building response in California, it will generally result in periods that are lower (hence, more conservative for use in predicting base shear) than those computed from a more rigorous mathematical model". So, there is no need to use the value of time period that is lot less than Ta. One should always check the time period used by the software; ETABS can overestimate the seismic force by more than 2 times.

      Visit the forum link to read the complete article.
      Link: http://www.sepakistan.com/topic/2300-commentsobservations-regarding-modelling-in-etabs/
      • 0 replies
    • The minimum amount and spacing of reinforcement to be used in structural floors, roof slabs, and walls for control of temperature and shrinkage cracking is given in ACI 318 or in ACI 350R. The minimum-reinforcement percentage, which is between 0.18 and 0.20%, does not normally control cracks to within generally acceptable design limits. To control cracks to a more acceptable level, the percentage requirement needs to exceed about 0.60% (REFRENCE ACI COMMITE REPORT 224R-01)



       

       



       

       

      So according to above statement , should we follow 0.60%, to be on more safe side??



       
      • 12 replies
    • Dear Sir/Madam,

      This email is an invitation for the participation in the First South Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering (SACEE-2019) which will be held on 21-22 February 2019 in Karachi, Pakistan. This conference is the inaugural event in this series of conferences which has been constituted under the auspices of South Asia Earthquake Network (SHAKE). The organisers of the conference include NED University, University of Porto, University of Fuzhou, University Roma Tre and Institution of Engineers Pakistan. The conference website can be visited at http://sacee.neduet.edu.pk/.

      Please note that world leading earthquake engineering experts have confirmed their participation in the conference. These include Prof Abdelkrim Aoudia (Italy), Prof Alper Ilki (Turkey), Dr Amod Mani Dixit (Nepal), Prof Bruno Briseghella (Italy), Prof George Mylonakis (UK), Prof Khalid Mosalam (USA), Prof Humberto Varum (Portugal) and many others. The presence of these distinguished experts allows you to exchange your work/issues with them and discuss possibility of any future collaboration. Please note that participation in the conference is strictly based on registration. Early registration in different categories at reduced rates are available till 10 December 2018. Please visit the conference website to see the details and the link for registration.

      If there are any queries, please do not hesitate to contact the Conference Secretary at the following address

      Prof. Muhammad Masood Rafi
      Conference Secretary- SACEE-2019
      Chairman
      Department of Earthquake Engineering
      NED University of Engineering & Technology Karachi, Pakistan.
      Phone: 0092-21-992-261261 Ext:2605
      Email: rafi-m@neduet.edu.pk
    • What is the Minimum reinforcement For Precast Pile  according to different codes (ACI,BS)??  Pile length is 40 times of pile least dimension . 
      • 1 reply
    • Dear members, I am working on a 10 storied rcc factory building with one basement,  where floor loads are in general 125 psf(Live) . but there are 2 warehouse in the building at ground floor & 10th floor where the Live load of stacked materials are 450psf. I have modeled it and analysed in ETABS. After analysis, seeing the floor displacement for seismic load,  i am in big shock to see the pattern. the displacement pattern suddenly increased hugely & then got normal . if the warehouse load created problem, then why it effected only Ground floor level, not the 10th floor! Please tell me how can i solve it. 
      • 1 reply
    • Asalamualaikum all,

      I have columns which are conflicting with the underground water tank as shown in figure.
       

      So I have decided to make underground water tank base slab as a footing for column. So I import etabs model to safe and just take uniform water load on base slab and point load from columns.

      This is the residential house. The BC is 2tsf. But SAFE is showing tension on the base slab and the thickness from punching is 30''. I believe that thickness is too high. What can be the error? Is this approach is correct for design base slab of ugwt to carry load of two edge columns?
      • 11 replies
    • SAFE perform iterative uplift analysis,any one having experience how to check the results of this analysis???what is the purpose and scope of this analysis???
      • 15 replies
    • Shear wall design
      AOA 

      i am facing problems in shear wall design .what are the pier and spandral ?what will be the difference when we assign pier or spandral? without assigning these the shear wall design is incomplete .

      i am taking about etabsv16

      someone have document about shear wall design plz provide it 

      thank you

       
      • 13 replies
  • Tell a friend

    Love Structural Engineering Forum Of Pakistan? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.