You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Forum updated
We have recently updated our forums system, and we have cleared all spam topics and users. In case we accidentally deleted your account, please register again. If you miss a topic you have posted before, please let us know.
Post new reply
Post new reply
Compose and post your new reply
You may use: BBCode Smilies
All fields with bold label must be completed before the form is submitted.
Topic review (newest first)
1. Does the lower part with only 5cm height really contain the bottom cover + the reinforcement + about the same space as the cover to the other side (above the reinforcement)?
2. Please check if the reinforcement cross section area is calculated correctly.
3. Comparing reinforcement ratios for a part of a beam (e.g., the bottom) with code limits for the whole beam (i.e., the average ration throughout the thickness) does not make much sense.
4. If you wish modelling advice related to a model, please send us the model along with a sketch etc., following Troubleshooting 2.1.1.
5. Next time, please post follow-up questions as replies to the original thread.
I have already read ATENA Troubleshooting, 2.2.6 How do I calculate the reinforcement ratio when defining smeared reinforcement, but when i calculated the reinforcement ratio as mentioned in this section i found it is very large as follow:
As=12.06 cm2 (real reinforcement cross section area for the beam mid span section which calculated by code requirements ) , Ac=30x5=150 cm2 (the cross section area of the macro element for which i calculate the smeared reinforcement ratio.) , then the reinforcement ratio=8.04% , also the results was illegal such as the strain distribution is nonlinear at the mid span section.
