Hi,
I was reviewing the calculations by two different software packages, due to discrepancies in the amount of additional flexural reinforcement required.
One package was basing additional flexural reo on the actual (Asw/s) ratio provided. For example N12-200 = 0.565.
The other package was back calculating a required Tus to satisfy Phi Tus = T*. Using this Tus to find an Asw @ max spacing in equation 8.3.5 (2). Then using this Asw in 8.3.6 (1). Now, this Asw is a theoretical value and can be a fraction of a standard bar, ie half an N12.
I appreciate both methods of calculation, but agree more with the latter method. Essentially this clauses penalises you for being conservative, by adding in flexural reo to be compatible (truss analogy) with the torsion ligs provided.
What is everyone else's take on this interpretation? 8.3.6 (1) can result in very large amounts of additional reo.
I was reviewing the calculations by two different software packages, due to discrepancies in the amount of additional flexural reinforcement required.
One package was basing additional flexural reo on the actual (Asw/s) ratio provided. For example N12-200 = 0.565.
The other package was back calculating a required Tus to satisfy Phi Tus = T*. Using this Tus to find an Asw @ max spacing in equation 8.3.5 (2). Then using this Asw in 8.3.6 (1). Now, this Asw is a theoretical value and can be a fraction of a standard bar, ie half an N12.
I appreciate both methods of calculation, but agree more with the latter method. Essentially this clauses penalises you for being conservative, by adding in flexural reo to be compatible (truss analogy) with the torsion ligs provided.
What is everyone else's take on this interpretation? 8.3.6 (1) can result in very large amounts of additional reo.