Search results for query: *

I think ETABS doesn't let you filter from that location - you have to go into the format-filter-sort bar at the top. I think SAP and SAFE let you filter directly in the table, not ETABS (Fun, right?)

What does the advanced meshing dialog box look like. Could the edge restraint be turned on in there? that's what this looks like

Are the "web" bars stirrups? or are you talking about skin reinforcement - horizontal bars around the faces of the beam?

camin < cac -> ψ ≠ 1.0 per EQ.17.6.2.6.1a For Eq.b, I think the 1.5hef/cac is meant as a minimum. So if camin/cac is less than 1.5hef/cac, you can use 1.5hef/cac as your ψ. So I believe ψ = 0.99 in your case, assuming the other calculations are correct.

Alright - well you can see a change in the typical midspan moment, it's no longer a nice parabolic shape. The beam is contributing some stiffness and crimping the moment diagram. I would test increasing the secondary and primary beam depths independently to study if one or both of these elements...

Are there beams in the left-right direction? Many of these secondary beams are unsupported if not

An image of the layout would help. If your slab is sagging at the beams - then the beams likely aren't stiff enough to support the slab. More depth does not mean more stiffness. EI/L Imagine a 300ft long beam with a perpendicular slab spanning 10'. The slab is probably going to "support"...

Is the slab stiffer than the beams?

What code are you designing for? For ACI - you can either use the approximate factors (0.25Ig for the slab - as you noted) or actually analyze the degree of cracking using nonlinear modeling or by calculating the degree of cracking yourself and applying a modifier that way (likely with...

Are you viewing releases in the display settings - or do you have object shrink turned on?

Congestion really is the primary difference. There is a really minor calculation difference in a shear capacity - see ACI for this, but it's really not enough of a difference to worry about. Stud rails were originally invented to combat congestion from what I have been told

Can always test it using a simple stick model - use a super stiff frame element with a pin + rotational spring at one end and apply a point load at the tip. Calculate how much rotation you would expect based on a kN-m/rad unit assumption and see how it works out. Not sure why the units are so...

Hm - weird. Yes - gird line intersections work like nodes

Do you have nodes drawn already? Usually you need nodes to connect your frames to. Also - check veiw settings to make sure something weird isn't happening like frames being turned off

I am currently running into a problem where using the interactive database editor will overwrite some frame section properties and turn them into circles with a radius of 1-meter, even when we are not changing any section properties during the database edit. Has anyone else run into this issue...

It depends what you want from your analysis Uniform loads will only be delivered at the nodes of the areas I believe. Therefore you won't get any load distribution along the supporting frame's length, except at eh discrete mesh locations. Uniform to frame loads area based on the local axes of...

Right - that's more what I was trying to figure out - does everyone just specify 135's or are there parts of the country/world where this would be more of a surprise in the field. Appreciate the follow up here - good discussions

I think the fundamental thing here is if you want the flexural failure to occur in the frame as you want - everything else needs to survive until them. You back out the Ve based on Mpr to protect your frame against shear. If the other elements supporting the frame will fail before Mpr or Ve [of...

?

When making an interaction diagram - the upper bound for pure axial load, once you account for phi, 0.8 and 0.85 factors comes out to around 0.44*f'c. But typically you need to account for minimum eccentricity which causes some moment - and the length of wall you think you can distribute this...