Search results for query: *

Hi All, I looked everywhere but I couldn't find any specific information, and when I found some info they were kind of contracting each other (or maybe it would be better to say that they did not agree). 1 - do couplers always have to be at slab mid depth? (I don't think so). 2 - do couplers...

Hi Trenno, if you want to know which software they copied when they released the firt "new era" ETABS v13, check Midas Gen. I used it back in 2008 and was the best FEA software I ever seen. They had the tree menu that ETABS introduced. Unfortunately it does not have the AS implemented, I already...

Hi Ilyas, I am interested to see if anyone has an answer because I just found out the same thing. The difference is 1% but still I would expect the same value. I presume you are talking about the equivalent static right? The funny thing is that if you select all the 6 cases il the EQS load...

Hi Redtelis, easy to resolve in the proper way without affecting the quality of the model. [ol 1] open a new window displaying the 3D model. [/ol] [ol 2] select the upper column (the half column connected to the upper slab/beam) [/ol] [ol 3] select the top end node and drag it to the node of...

Hi mvlad, the horizontal panels are just a mass that increases the seismic load onto the columns. Bear in mind that the connection between these panels and the columns cannot develop a bending moment due to unexpected fixity of the connection. In addition check the connection in tension...

Hi all, I have a complex model with a weird shape that gives me problems. I managed to run the Modal analysis using Eigenvalues algorithm but the mass participation ratios comprise a big component of RX RY. According to ETABS analysis reference manual UX UY UZ RX RY RZ are about the center of...

Hi all, I am relatively new to ETABS although with extensive experience in FEA, and I am a bit puzzled about the results that ETABS provides compared to what is described in the CSi documentation. I am analysing an eccentric building where the first mode is torsional (activates 37% of mass) and...

Hi everyone, sorry for the late contribution, but I was looking for something else and I found this thread started by Peter, so....I couldn't resist! (Hi Peter, hope everything is good [wink]) AS3600 is quite semplicistic in many aspects, starting from columns reinforcement detailing to slab...

Ref to thread255-282878 I have created a spreadsheet to calculate the embedment depth of a bored pier in sandy soil. I get same results as per Design example 1 for formulas B2 and B6, but different values for B4 and B5. There is something not quite right in formula B5; the units are not right...

Yeah, but I didn't know. I don't know why the User defined reinforcement where there. I am sure I haven't put any reo.

Hi guys, thanks for your help, but I just figured out today what was the issue. There were user defined reinforcements that create ductility issue. I am pretty sure I haven't added that reo! Anyway, finally I managed to solve it. @Trenno You are right. I have a ductility issue at the end span...

Hi everybody, I am fairly new to RAM Concept but I already got hands on most of the Layers to check. I am currently dealing with a flat slab with few transfers. It is ok for strength, but has few localised ductility issues that I can't solve. I tried to reduce the number of strands (to the...

Thanks PEinc, that is exactly what I am doing, I wanted to work out the soil spring stiffness in the embedded depth (which I assumed based on the force equilibrium of the trapezoidal soil pressure and the lateral allowable bearing pressure in the embedment depth) to put in the FEA model because...

I guess I haven't been clear enough. I am not trying to work out the soil pressure diagram. I already have the trapezoidal distribution given by the geotech consultant (based on Peck theory). Given the design soil pressure and diagram, and the allowable lateral bearing pressure for the embedded...

Thanks, I just called the geotech consultant, and he assumed a ground anchor at the top, and a at rest soil pressure, but he didn't mention in the report. At the end I calculated the spring stiffness at 2m depth from founding level based on the 200kPa lateral allowable bearing pressure at 1.8m...

I appreciate any opinion or suggestion on the following matter: I have to design a cantilevering retention system for a 7m excavation on a fine to medium clayey sand at founding level. Unfortunately the geotech report specifies just the soil pressure profile to adopt for the structural design...

I used once the new etabs, and I have to admit that there are plenty if bugs. Unfortunately you cannot keep designing/working with the worry that what you get is wrong. Actually I don't like at all etabs (any version) cause I have been used do work using a much better software (MIDAS gen), much...

Hi msegerman, you are right, I just replied without realizing that there was a mistake. you have to modify the factors f & m relative to the type of element you are considering, so f11 m11 and f22 m22 I guess. Sorry but it is long time I don't use etabs, so I cannot recall straight away, but if...

Correct, both f22+m33 for piers and f11+m33 for sprandels.

I think I found how it really is [thumbsup2] According to ETABS manual and ATKINS manual, " The f11, f22 and f12 modifiers are essentially equivalent to modification factors on the thickness of the shell element. The m11, m22 and m12 modifiers are essentially equivalent to modification factors...