×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Wood and Armer

Wood and Armer

Wood and Armer

(OP)
I am perplexed by the way the classic Wood and Armer equations are applied.  Assuming the Z axis is pointing upwards and a typical case where positive values of Mx and My create tension in the top surface (i.e. the element is hogging) and Mxy is added to My on one edge and deducted from My on the other and Myx (which presumably = Mxy) acts similarly on Mx. So, the maximum positive value of Mx becomes Mx + Mxy.  This gives rise to tension on the TOP surface which determines the reinforcement in the TOP surface.  However, every example I have seen shows the Mx + Mxy as the value for calculating bottom reinforcement.  Surely this is a dangerous approach anyway because if Z is pointing downwards (after all we are talking about local axes here) everything is reversed. It would be much safer to say +ve Z face and -ve Z face.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources