Differences in column longitudinal reinforcement - ETABs Detailed Design Reports.

[WAFAPEGO]

Could some one explain what is happening here? This is a report from ETBAS for a column design. There are differences between Summary and Envelope reports for longitudinal reinforcement design. I didn't define an Envelope combination for design. I'll appreciate your answers.

 

[Just Some Nerd]

Is the second page on the summary tab the calcs for a different load combo? It says 1.2D+1.6L on page 1, but the envelope says the controlling combination is 1.2D+1.6L+0.5Lr

As an aside, have a personal vendetta against using ETABs for column design. Never quite feel like I trust the outputs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why yes, I do in fact have no idea what I'm talking about

 

[Luceid]

Similar to @Just Some Nerd, I'd be careful with ETABS' column design here. It looks like the Summary is only reporting the "Top" Reinforcement design from the envelope (A_s matches, Rebar Percent Matches). This seems especially odd since the axial force and moments on the Summary page look like they relate to the bottom of the column (Assuming, since the axial force increases, likely due to the self weight of the column over its length). Some classic suspicious CSI activity, certainly.