Eng-Tips is the largest forum for Engineering Professionals on the Internet.

Members share and learn making Eng-Tips Forums the best source of engineering information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations JStephen 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: *

  • Users: M_U
  • Order by date
  1. M_U

    Modelling horizontal(in-plan) bracings in the ETABS.

    I tried but the software is taking the point loads from the secondary beam as shown in the bending diagram of bracing. Ideally it should be zero.
  2. M_U

    Modelling horizontal(in-plan) bracings in the ETABS.

    Can someone help me out with the above problem.
  3. M_U

    Anchor configuration for base plate design for considering supplementary reinforcement as per Euro code.

    The shear is around 2200 kN and axial force is 1000 kN. It is the base of a chiller platform. The designer has assumed pinned support at the base. I am still deciding the numbers of anchors. Your suggestion will be very helpful.
  4. M_U

    Anchor configuration for base plate design for considering supplementary reinforcement as per Euro code.

    Thank you very much for the insights.
  5. M_U

    Anchor configuration for base plate design for considering supplementary reinforcement as per Euro code.

    Hi, I am designing a base plate. The shear force is around 2200 kn. I am unable to use the anchor configuration given in EN 1992-4. I want to use some other configuration. my question - can we use supplementary reinforcements to prevent the breakout failure as per the code if we go with...
  6. M_U

    Modelling horizontal(in-plan) bracings in the ETABS.

    Hi, I am trying to model horizontal bracing in ETABS. But if I model them at the floor level it starts taking gravity loads from secondary beam which should not be the case. I can not use the exclude frame from shell option because I am using membrane for deck. So, how to model them correctly?
  7. M_U

    Deciding the lateral force resisting system.

    Thanks for the insights. Can someone recommend any reference guide where I can look for this type of detailing and calculations.
  8. M_U

    Deciding the lateral force resisting system.

    Hi, i got a building to review. The person is using special moment resisting frame parameters as per ASCE 7-16 for the x and y direction of the building. But as per the model, the engineer is not using beams along x direction in two bays due to the height restriction. They are relying on the...
  9. M_U

    Use of eccentricities values to counter the torsion in ETABS.

    Hi, We have a building in which we have first mode as torsion mode. One of colleagues is saying that instead of correcting the geometry like adding shear walls or changing column orientation, we should find the eccentricities at diaphragms and use those increased values in the load patterns. I...
  10. M_U

    Strain in compression rebar of doubly reinforced beams.

    Thanks for the reply. But my concern is that if the yield stress in the compression rebar exceed yield strength. Then if I refer ACI value, the min yield strain for grade 60 rebar is 0.002. And if the forces in the compression rebars are higher then the strain in these rebars may exceed 0.003...
  11. M_U

    Strain in compression rebar of doubly reinforced beams.

    Hi, I am little confused with values of the strains in the compression rebars in doubly reinforced beam. Is there any limit on the strain of the rebars. Should the stress be within yield stress or it may exceed yield stress values. If the stress in rebars exceed the yield strength, then the...
  12. M_U

    SAFE not considering opening in punching calculation when the opening is near the face of column.

    Thanks for the suggestions. I will use Spreadsheet for now. I hope in the latest versions they correct this issue.
  13. M_U

    SAFE not considering opening in punching calculation when the opening is near the face of column.

    Yes, I am expecting from the software to reduce the perimeter by the width of the opening which is 8". But it is not reducing.
  14. M_U

    SAFE not considering opening in punching calculation when the opening is near the face of column.

    Yes, the opening crosses the critical section. As the slab is 8" thick and the opening is 8"x8". It is crossing the critical section.
  15. M_U

    SAFE not considering opening in punching calculation when the opening is near the face of column.

    I have seen this in the manual. But I am confused why the software is not considering the opening just at the face of the column. As I move the opening away from the face of column around "d" distance, it starts considering the opening and reduces the punching perimeter.
  16. M_U

    SAFE not considering opening in punching calculation when the opening is near the face of column.

    I have a small opening which is at the face of the column. While calculating punching shear the software is not reducing the punching perimeter. The size of column is 24" x24". The slab is 8" thick. and the opening is 8"x8". I have attached the screenshots. Does any have idea about this...

Part and Inventory Search

Back
Top