Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Search results for query: *

  1. GTD_18

    Gravity-Induced Interstorey Drift Limits - Eccentric Core - Tall Buildings (thread507-4)

    Further to Drapes thread: thread507-467421 I am just wondering if anyone has another comments or feedback on this (been a while sine the original one). I did find this paper which is a good read but it doesn't discuss reasonable limits...
  2. GTD_18

    RAM vs RAPT for cantilever deflections to AS3600

    Thanks Dominator, Apologies for the delay in response - i have been off ill so I didn't have a chance to review the forum in a while. I updated the comments that you made but with no change to the RAM results. I think i will continue to use RAPT (as i always did) :) Going back to RAPTs point...
  3. GTD_18

    RAM vs RAPT for cantilever deflections to AS3600

    Thanks for the response RAPT and Trenno, Rapt run attached for reference (with the LLR at 1 for comparison to RAM). This all came about as I completed a concept layout in RAPT and got my Grad to finalise the design who picked up deflection issues in RAM – which doesn’t make sense to me as...
  4. GTD_18

    RAM vs RAPT for cantilever deflections to AS3600

    Thanks for the response JSN - its appreciated! As a system, it should be relativity one way as it only two points of support. You could argue that the continuous support (away from the column) would pull load from the back-span but after rerunning the RAM model with a support under the beam...
  5. GTD_18

    RAM vs RAPT for cantilever deflections to AS3600

    Hi All, Just looking for some high-level comments or guidelines for modelling large(ish) cantilever in band beam floorplates (in RAM - RAPT is fine). The floorplate is a 4m cantilever, 10.5m back span with a 9m tributary; a 400dp, 2.4m PT band beam with a 180thk PT slab structure has been...
  6. GTD_18

    AS3600 Section 14 - Header Beams

    Hi All, I was having a debate with a colleague today about the use of shear amplification on header beams (coupling beam). I was of the view that it forms the core box and is a "wall" thus requires the amplifier; however she disagreed as "it's not a wall"? Any thoughts or opinions? Thanks
  7. GTD_18

    Diagonally reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams in Australia

    To be honest - when I read clause 14.6.6 I assumed that the amplification was to be applied to the section of pier/wall only not the coupling beams (wrongly - now I think on it). looks like most of the “premier” software packages only apply it to pier sections too - interesting... an updated...
  8. GTD_18

    Max Spacing of vertical bars in walls

    I would agree that it's per grid or per face. The code is generally written noting "per face" arrangements.
  9. GTD_18

    AS3600_2018 - clause 6.2.4.2 for seismic modelling

    It looks like the new AS1170.4 commentary has provided difference referenced Icr values - refer to pg 70 - table C7.2
  10. GTD_18

    ETABS CENTRE OF RIGIDITY

    I believe that you need to assign the diaphragm as "rigid" and then tick the box in the "set cases to run" (btm left hand corner).
  11. GTD_18

    AS3600_2018 - clause 6.2.4.2 for seismic modelling

    I'm on the other side of the fence - design as Mu=2 (if applicable) and detail as such. I think once the detailing requirements of the new code become "standard" on site then they'll be much less pushback.
  12. GTD_18

    AS3600_2018 - clause 6.2.4.2 for seismic modelling

    Initially I think that the idea of the restraint reo spooked a few of the contractors which led to using Mu=1 as the baseline design but now we are generally back to using Mu=2 with all the detailing requirements that this brings. Interesting responses to the above – kind of in line with what I...
  13. GTD_18

    AS3600_2018 - clause 6.2.4.2 for seismic modelling

    Hi All, I am just curious on what other teams/offices are doing with clause 6.2.4.2 (in AS3600_2018) wrt to the effective section properties of walls for seismic events? • Uncracked = tensile stress < mean char flexural tensile strength • Cracked = tensile stress > mean char flexural tensile...
  14. GTD_18

    AS3600 - Cl 14.6.6

    Thanks for the feedback – great responses. After a little bit more research I found that the 1.6 factor is based from a recommendation within the Priestley 2007 “displacement-based seismic design of structures” – pg 170. So, going back to clause 14.6.6 (and hopefully not pushing may look); I...
  15. GTD_18

    AS3600 - Cl 14.6.6

    Thanks for the comments IDS (apologies in the delay in response); I agree the about the reasoning but i was wondering what the background of this clause is (i.e. why have a 1.6 factor rather than 1.05). Also i was wondering whether this assessment should be made against PhiVu_max over PhiVu...
  16. GTD_18

    AS3600 - Cl 14.6.6

    Hi All, I was wondering what the "eng-tips" consensus is to cl 14.6.6 of AS 3600-2018 to allow for the effects of over-strength in the walls? It may be a silly question but wouldn't this result in an unrealistic load allowance in most conditions - particularly if the walls are sized to limit...
  17. GTD_18

    As 1170.0 - T4.1 - Fire load

    Just a quick one; there is a little bit of debate in my office and I was wondering about everyone’s interpretation? What would you take for the column action under a fire condition? Should it be G+0.4Q as the load from the floor is a UDL (theoretical floor) or is it G+0.6Q as the load action in...

Part and Inventory Search

Back
Top