Search results for query: *

Relating to the above, the two recently published papers for BEI 2024 listed below have information on the use of strengths for bridge assessments. They are accessible using the link below. Wong and Vimonsatit (2024), "Determination of MCFT-Based Shear Strength for Shear Load Rating of Concrete...

While C&M derivation (Reference: Prestressed Concrete Structures by M P Collins and D. Mitchell, Response Publication Canada), 1997" made use of the equation for nominal shear resistance of a section Vn = Vc + Vs + Vp (Eqn 7-42, C&M's book) in the calculation in Section 7.13 of their book, they...

IDS, I disagree with your statement above as my results do not show what you stated in the quote above. AS 3600 and the Canadian and AASHTO codes all have a different set of equations from that of AS 5100.5. AS 5100.5 has no restriction, AS 3600 with Admt 2 restricts φVus to V*-φVuc and...

The attachment for the WXMAXIMA check is provided here.https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=8c899bb1-4484-4e47-8fd6-032b407dbdb5&file=20231104_-_Case_2_with_N10_ligature_check_using_wxmaxima.pdf

The attachment for M*=400 kNm is provided here.https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=e30d89ca-bd21-4ea6-b460-614e4d393933&file=20231104__5100.5_section_design_check__using_excel_for_M_design_of_400_kNm.pdf

The attachment for M*=297 kNm is provided here as I have problem when editing the above post to include this attachment.https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=0c80891a-d6a7-4247-a869-05b62b3f8367&file=20231104__5100.5_section_design_check__using_excel_for_M_design_of_297_kNm.pdf

Points 3 and 4 noted. When adjusting the spreadsheet for use with AS 5100.5 from a previous one I used based on AS 3600, a few of the equations were not corrected to those given in AS 5100.5. These errors are now corrected. The problem with using the equations of AS 5100.5 for longitudinal...

I have not came across any published technical papers providing a reason for the inclusion of the mentioned restriction in standards. This restriction appears to be a "good practice" requirement. If this is correct, this means that a structural system designed to AS 5100.5 and not satisfying...

My response here is to address the above comment. Since so many comments provided by IDS which require addressing, I will address them (most later) in separate posts to not overload readers with too much information in one post and to allow each to be discussed separately. Your first sentence...

Attached is a printout of my Excel analysis (to AS 5100.5-2017 with Amdt1) using the sections described in the blogs of IDS (links given earlier in this discussion thread). My analysis fully conforms with MCFT for section shear in the determination of φVu since I did not adjust the mid-depth...

The paper by Vannisorn V, Wong KW and Mendis PA, Increase in longitudinal steel reinforcement to account for shear in RC beam design to AS 3600, Concrete Institute of Australia Conference Concrete2023 held in Perth 10-13 September 2023, stated that: (1) the equation in Amendment 2 to limit...

Doug, If you refer back to your earlier posting dated 21 Sep 23 (see above quote) and go through my previous postings on https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=499791, you will notice that I did not ignore the missing restriction in the AS 5100.5 equation. The paper presented at the...

Rapt, The equation for additional force with the term φVus in longitudinal steel caused by shear in Clause 8.2.7 of AS 3600-2018 with Amdt 1 and AS 5100.5-2017 with Amdt 1 is not based on MCFT. This can be seen in previous published papers mentioning this equation. In the paper "Background to...

Bugbus, If you iterate using the live load portion V*(LL) only and match the varying V*(DL+LL) with Vu to give Vu(iteration), the factor determined using V*(DL&LL) (design shear), Vu(iteration) [Use this Vu to replace phiVu in the load rating equation] and V*(DL) is a scaling factor. This...

Bugbus, My post above is consistent with how we do design now. For a set of (V_d*,M_d*) calculate V_ud, so this Vu_d is consistent with M_d*/_dV*. check whether V_d*=phiV_ud if we want optimal adequacy. So we have consistency since M_d*,V_d* and phiV_ud is for the same level of loading. I am...

If you iterate using the live load portion V*(LL) only and match the varying V*(DL+LL) with phiVu to give phiVu(iteration), the factor determined using V*(DL&LL) (design shear), phiVu(iteration) and V*(DL) is a scaling factor. This factor applied to the full vehicle gives a scaled vehicle with...

The figure of the block shown in the Concrete2023 conference (reference given above) by Vimonsatit, Wong and Mendis (2023) is reproduced below. Note the typo error - label Vp should read Pv.

Suggest you get hold of a recent copy of AASHTO bridge Specification to view the diagram and the assumptions made, and to see the equation is derived. In AASHTO 2010 5th Edition, this diagram has a label "Forces Assumed in Resistance Model Caused by Moment and Shear". An assumption is made that...

Doug, Agree to disagree with "It needs to be revised and should be revised to use the same equation as AS 3600". Thank you for your comments.

When we changed over from using an ultimate shear capacity which depends on action effects, the relationship between strength and shear is nonlinear. While the load rating factor can be taken as a load scaling factor (to determine the ultimate shear from design shear) in the past with earlier...