Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Enercalc Reinforced Concrete Beam design

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>I have never used Enercalc, however, it would seem that the loading may be
>upwards instead of downwards? Usually down loads are input with a negative
>sign.  Hope this is the simple answer.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	John Armijo [SMTP:421jarmi(--nospam--at)pwcsd.nosc.mil]
>Sent:	July 07, 1998 10:56 AM
>To:	seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>Subject:	Enercalc Reinforced Concrete Beam design
>
>I am  designing a reinforced concrete lintel over a 12'-0" masonry
>opening. I have input 2 # 5 Top and Bottom of a 8" wide by 12" deep
>beam. End conditions are Fixed-Fixed, Seismic Zone 4, 150PCF concrete
>weight, uniform dead load of 1.064 KLF, and #3 ties. All other input values
>are the defaults.
>
>I have two questions:
>
>1. Which version of the ACI Code is being used?
>
>2. For the input above I get Maximum Moment, Mu=  -19.56 K-ft and
>Allowable Moment, Mn/phi= 16.48 K-ft and a note saying, "Beam Design
>OK". Granted a positive number is larger than a negative number, but my
>concern is that the absolute value, | -19.56 | is greater than the absolute
>value of | 16.48 | and that the beam design is NOT OK.
>
>Can anyone shed some light on this?
>
It appears to me that :

1. There may be an inadvertant crossover in the language used in defining
the allowable moment versus the Maximum ultimate moment. Terminology is used
from both WS and USD in defining the output.

2. I would check it by hand using something as archaic as "moment
distribution"..... A simple check would be a uniform load...

3. I'd be tempted to assume that the max moment would be at a support....but
we all know that assumptions can be the "mothers" of many bad things!!

Norb Volny ,PE
Bend ,Or.