FE_struct1
Structural
- Nov 30, 2017
- 41
Hi all,
This is something that's been at the back of my mind but I haven't really found a convincing answer so far. I understand the new shear provisions - based on MCFT - are more accurate and can bring in some potential reo savings but were there any other reasons ? Were there cases where the old theory fell significantly short for frames in buildings ? Was there any specific reason to not - for example - follow the ACI approach of keeping the old methods but just adding caveats, and leaving the MCFT to only be applicable to bridge structures ?
Basically, what was/were the impetus for changing the code provisions ?
Thanks in advance !
This is something that's been at the back of my mind but I haven't really found a convincing answer so far. I understand the new shear provisions - based on MCFT - are more accurate and can bring in some potential reo savings but were there any other reasons ? Were there cases where the old theory fell significantly short for frames in buildings ? Was there any specific reason to not - for example - follow the ACI approach of keeping the old methods but just adding caveats, and leaving the MCFT to only be applicable to bridge structures ?
Basically, what was/were the impetus for changing the code provisions ?
Thanks in advance !