Further to Drapes thread: thread507-467421
I am just wondering if anyone has another comments or feedback on this (been a while sine the original one). I did find this paper which is a good read but it doesn't discuss reasonable limits...
Thanks Dominator,
Apologies for the delay in response - i have been off ill so I didn't have a chance to review the forum in a while.
I updated the comments that you made but with no change to the RAM results. I think i will continue to use RAPT (as i always did) :)
Going back to RAPTs point...
Thanks for the response RAPT and Trenno,
Rapt run attached for reference (with the LLR at 1 for comparison to RAM).
This all came about as I completed a concept layout in RAPT and got my Grad to finalise the design who picked up deflection issues in RAM – which doesn’t make sense to me as...
Thanks for the response JSN - its appreciated!
As a system, it should be relativity one way as it only two points of support. You could argue that the continuous support (away from the column) would pull load from the back-span but after rerunning the RAM model with a support under the beam...
Hi All,
Just looking for some high-level comments or guidelines for modelling large(ish) cantilever in band beam floorplates (in RAM - RAPT is fine).
The floorplate is a 4m cantilever, 10.5m back span with a 9m tributary; a 400dp, 2.4m PT band beam with a 180thk PT slab structure has been...
Hi All,
I was having a debate with a colleague today about the use of shear amplification on header beams (coupling beam). I was of the view that it forms the core box and is a "wall" thus requires the amplifier; however she disagreed as "it's not a wall"?
Any thoughts or opinions?
Thanks
To be honest - when I read clause 14.6.6 I assumed that the amplification was to be applied to the section of pier/wall only not the coupling beams (wrongly - now I think on it).
looks like most of the “premier” software packages only apply it to pier sections too - interesting...
an updated...
I'm on the other side of the fence - design as Mu=2 (if applicable) and detail as such. I think once the detailing requirements of the new code become "standard" on site then they'll be much less pushback.
Initially I think that the idea of the restraint reo spooked a few of the contractors which led to using Mu=1 as the baseline design but now we are generally back to using Mu=2 with all the detailing requirements that this brings.
Interesting responses to the above – kind of in line with what I...
Hi All,
I am just curious on what other teams/offices are doing with clause 6.2.4.2 (in AS3600_2018) wrt to the effective section properties of walls for seismic events?
• Uncracked = tensile stress < mean char flexural tensile strength
• Cracked = tensile stress > mean char flexural tensile...
Thanks for the feedback – great responses. After a little bit more research I found that the 1.6 factor is based from a recommendation within the Priestley 2007 “displacement-based seismic design of structures” – pg 170.
So, going back to clause 14.6.6 (and hopefully not pushing may look); I...
Thanks for the comments IDS (apologies in the delay in response);
I agree the about the reasoning but i was wondering what the background of this clause is (i.e. why have a 1.6 factor rather than 1.05). Also i was wondering whether this assessment should be made against PhiVu_max over PhiVu...
Hi All,
I was wondering what the "eng-tips" consensus is to cl 14.6.6 of AS 3600-2018 to allow for the effects of over-strength in the walls?
It may be a silly question but wouldn't this result in an unrealistic load allowance in most conditions - particularly if the walls are sized to limit...
Just a quick one; there is a little bit of debate in my office and I was wondering about everyone’s interpretation?
What would you take for the column action under a fire condition? Should it be G+0.4Q as the load from the floor is a UDL (theoretical floor) or is it G+0.6Q as the load action in...
