Search results for query: *

WillisV, ACI 10.11 factors if used for flexural cracking will be excessive and kind of an over kill. There are other approches to accomadate flexural cracking in concrete members to estimate the loss of stiffness. We have developed some our own, based on available research papers.

JAE, as I have said again in my previous post, the answere you have got from ACI is not the official standing of ACI please do read the disclaimer on website. This is some one's interpretation of code not the opinion of ACI-318 Commitee. What you got is nothing more then a personal opinon of you...

Yes Agreed, never used SD with a response case but this is my observation also, when Piers are combined to form one SD section, the capacity increases from 20 to 40%

Try using MS Access data base file

In order to use shear reinf. provided by Etabs, you have to provide complete hook, in other words the total length of provided shear-rebar has to work in shear, this could be achieved by placing a U-bar at each end of shearwall and splicing it with straight bar.

This is a genral misconception, if you look at ACI 10-11 title "Maginified moments". This Article presents an alternate method of P-Delta analysis, stiffness of members are reduced to obtain higher deflection to get the affect of second order moments. Yes you should reduce stiffness as per 10-11...

JAE, looks like we lost each other in the middle of discussion, the comparison of Phi-Mn/Mcr is mentioned in the reffrence I posted from Macgragors concrete design book 4th edition. ACI in R10.5 also explains the same reason of minimum reinforcement. "With a very small amount of tensile...

JAE, also you are trying to go above and beyond to defend your opinion, if Mcr isn't necessarily a good measure of prevention of catastrophic, then you are not agreeing with your own argument. Let me tell you, I work on commercial buildings, office, high end condos, I have not used 4000 psi...

JAE, Let me explain this contradiction, yes I was critical of questioning Ghosh's statement becuase none of the question came up with any logical backing or calculation. Forum participants were giving there own opinions, well its not the matter of vanilla vs strawberry vs choclate. I have added...

JAE, let me give you a better one from Macgragor, take a look at the attachment, here he clearly spell out what he bleives. But I dont think he is correct reason is this simply dont work, please take a look at the calculation I posted above, think for a moment ACI dont write code for a specific...

JAE, If you are posting your question to ACI technical advisery (free service for members) please keep in mind that your question will never reach to Mr. Frosch, please do check the disclaimer of that service, it clearly states that "opinion expressed by the technical staff is not the official...

JAE, I would appreciate if you pose this question to the chairman of ACI Committee 318-0D, I am hopefull that Mr Frosch will enlighten us.

JAE, You are only reading what supports your opinion from Ghosh's email, he is very clear, I am amazed how come you come up with this argument that he might not have understood my question. Read again I am copying it below for you. "0.0018bh is the total amount of reinforcement you provide in...

Str.EIT, Yes I am making my case on the basis of ACI-Commitee members provided explanation, is that incorrect? I am not agruing about the contribution of top steel for flexure, my whole argument is that As,min = total area of steel in the direction of span. Let me question this why you assume...

JAE, thanks for detail insight, lets go one by one. 1) I suggest you should go through miecz posts above, he has given a great explanation of the flow of thought inside the code and how section 10.5 may have been developed. 2 & 3) I would have accepted your theory if code have not explicitly...

hokie, With all due respect you are not logical at all to defend you position, calling me dead wrong is not going to strengthen your point of view. I understand it is difficult to accept that one was incorrect, I am quoting clauses and notations from the ACI and you are coming with what? You...

Exactly how this is clear to you that As=As,min while code explicitly calls it out as a different notation and further provides the defination of this notation in chapter 2. 10.5.2 is an special case, I will answere your question when you explain me what is your reason to assume As = As,min

Read the clause 10.5.1 and 10.5.3 not the eq 10-3,

Valid point, defination of As,min dont change from clause to clause, that is why ACI 318 uses two different notations for different clauses. 10.5.1 uses notation of "As" which is defined in Section 2.1 "As = Area of non-prestressed longitudnal tension reinforcement" While 10.5.4 uses notation...

For sure not, because 10.5.1 says "at every section of a flexural member where tensile reinforcement is required....." I am bound to use Ast per 10.5.1 for Tensile reinforcement. I like your sense of humor.