Thank you colleagues!! I had a little hope that something easy was possible but I see that it requires some time to study.
@ClearCalcs, very interesting website, I'll use in the future.
Hello,
I have something similar to the following structure:
In order to verify bending ULS, I calculated the effective width of the web, compounded with flange and took its Md and Nd.
My question is: When verifying Shear ULS, do I have to use the same section (flange + effective width) or...
Hello, thank you for your reply.
I am working in a theoretical way. I would like to understand why the vertical displacement is that metioned in a Boussines half-space under a circular rigid foundation in order to calculate the theoretical expression in a Boussinesq half-space under a RING...
Hello,
I have found in several publications the expression for the Vertical displacement under a circular rigid foundation under a vertical load, P (in other words if I am not wrong: vertical displacement under an area carrying an uniform load, p):
It is derived from Boussinesq half space...
Section 9.2.1.3
(3) The resistance of bars within their anchorage lengths may be taken into account, assuming a linear variation of force, see Figure 9.2. As a conservative simplification this contribution may be ignored.
Thanks!
Hello,
Usually, the reinforced bars have been anchored in a way that until the complete anchorage length is not developed, the bars do not contribute (see following figure):
But, I am wondering if it can be taken into account some type of contribution, in a linear way or other, since the...
Thank you.
It is really strange such a high difference between these normatives, right?
Applying or not those partial factor on preload force normally governs the design...
While according to Eurocde 2, section 5.10.8, at ULS, it is necessary partial factors for preload (being 1.2 and 0.8). In the ACI code partial factor for preload is equal to 1.0 (only it is equal to 1.2 in anchorage zones).
Why is there such a difference? Does it exist any other factor...
Sorry, I did not explain well. 26.6º is the value which is deduced from the section 6.7. Taking into account that b2<3·b1 and h>b2-b1; angle maximun if b2 max, i.e. b2=3·b1, h=2·b1, so, angle=atan(((3·b1-b1)/2)/2·b1))=atan(1/2).
Thank you.
Section 6.7 of EC-2 is equivalent to 10.14 of ACI. But in the first case the angle of transmission is 26.6º, and in the second case the angle of transmission is 63.7º. How is it possible??
Thank you all!
I have attached a scheme.
The bottom concrete must be able to resist compression transmitted through the upper concrete. Of course, it will be easier if the angle is wide, until it gets truncated.
I have checked uses 1V:2H (63 deg), but EC-2 defines 2H:1H (27 deg) which is...
