FzAh
-
Posts
4 -
Joined
-
Last visited
FzAh's Achievements
Newbie (1/14)
0
Reputation
-
Hello everyone.. As per UBC Table 16-L (point no 5) we need to determine the story strength in order to evaluate a weak story. Now the question is how to determine story strength. Any procedure if available? Thanks
-
Shearwall flexure reinforcement comparison Etab 9.7.4 vs 16
FzAh replied to FzAh's topic in Software Issues
Referring to the attached snap shot, beam design output from Etab 16.2.1. Vu2 = 238.3 ; Vu* = 324.2; Vp= 1791.5587 : Vg= 152.42 Vu2 considered in design is 1943.98 KN (which is addition of Vp (capacity) and Vg (gravity). and shows that the beam fails in shear. Where in as per code and as said by Mr. Israr it shall be (The earthquake shear is either to be multiplied by 2 as per ACI 318-05 or the shear is to be derived from moment capacity at the ends. The earthquake shear has to be added to the gravity shear resulting in total shear which should not exceed the ultimate shear capacity of the beam). Any justification regarding this design results ?
-
Shearwall flexure reinforcement comparison Etab 9.7.4 vs 16
FzAh replied to FzAh's topic in Software Issues
There was difference in utilization factor limit. When we are importing older version of etab into new version it is considering utilization factor limit for wall design as default. In older version it was considered as 100% where as in new version after it is imported considering default as 95%. I have updated the utilization factor limit to 100% same as the old version the difference in percentage of reinforcement is reduced. But still it is 6 to 7%. I have investigated this with my colleagues. There were different feedback like Torsional effect are not considered in old version. Vc of concrete is reduced in new version Axial forces from slabs and beams are considered in new version etc.. It will be highly appreciated if someone investigates deep into this, to come to final conclusion. Thanks. -
i would like to ask regarding etab shear wall design comparison between etab 9.7.4 and etab 16. I checked the flexure design of a pier in old version the percentage is 0.81% where as in new version it is 1.77% . Huge difference. Old version of etab shows less reinforcement percentage for flexure compared to new version. Any justification regarding will be highly appreciated. Thanks
-
Dear Mr. Uzair,
i would like to ask regarding etab shear wall design comparison between etab 9.7.4 and etab 16.
I checked the flexure design of a pier in old version the percentage is 0.81% where as in new version it is 1.77% . Huge difference. Old version of etab shows less reinforcement percentage for flexure compared to new version. Any justification regarding will be highly appreciated.
Thanks
-
Thanks @FzAhfor having confidence in me, for referring your confusion. However, it is better to post your question on SEFP subforum titled "Software Issues", due to following reasons:-
Firstly, I use ETABS 9.7.4 & NOT ETABS 16. As such, I am unable to answer your question.
Secondly, if you search the forum, it is possible that the requisite information is already available there, in reply to some previous query.
Thirdly, many members of the forum are experienced users of etabs, capable of using both the old & new versions. Posting your question in the proper sefp forum will enable them to respond to your question. This is not possible for them while you post your problem in my profile.
Fourthly, posting the question on main forum & its replies will be beneficial for other forum users as well.
Regards.
-
