Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Re[2]: Enercalc Reinforced Concrete Beam design
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org, volnyeng(--nospam--at)COINET.COM
- Subject: Re[2]: Enercalc Reinforced Concrete Beam design
- From: jerome.tan(--nospam--at)PAREURO.COM
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:44:40 +0000
I, too, have never used enercalc. But, irregardless of the direction of the load, the maximum positive moment or negative moment for a fix-fix support with the load indicated is with the absolute value of 19.56 K-ft. Following the premise that the load as indicated was downwards and the resulting value is -19.56, then it would just indicate that the major reinforcement would be at the top since this is in tension and the bottom side is in compression. If, however, the load was upwards, then the major reinforcements would be at the bottom since this is the side in tension. Following should be the capacities should the material parameters are as indicated: fc = 3 ksi fy = 40 ksi cover = 1.5" Mu = 17.0 k-ft fc = 3 ksi fy = 60 ksi cover = 1.5" Mu = 24.6 k-ft fc = 4 ksi fy = 40 ksi cover = 1.5" Mu = 22.6 k-ft fc = 4 ksi fy = 60 ksi cover = 1.5" Mu = 32.8 k-ft There's a 3.15% differential between your result and my first set of parameters. Could be it be that enercalc is providing a certain percentage below or above theoretical values(like say plus or minus 5%)? And if your value falls within the limit, it says OK? Enercalc might answer us. Jerome ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: Enercalc Reinforced Concrete Beam design Author: MIME:volnyeng(--nospam--at)COINET.COM at INTERNET Date: 7/8/98 6:57 PM >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.
- Prev by Subject: RE: Enercalc Reinforced Concrete Beam design
- Next by Subject: Re: Enercalc Reinforced Concrete Beam design
- Previous by thread: Re: Enercalc Reinforced Concrete Beam design
- Next by thread: RE: Enercalc Reinforced Concrete Beam design
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]