zenith.international
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Reputation Activity
-
zenith.international got a reaction from UmarMakhzumi in Seismic Design Guide For Masonry Buildings
Please note that this book uses the Canadian Code.
One must also look at a companion book that uses the ACI code.
-
zenith.international got a reaction from UmarMakhzumi in Torsion Longitudinal Reinforcement
The information provided by Mjnasar is correct:
ACI 318 says that the torsion reinforcement is additive to the required flexural reinforcement
in your case, u can distribute the steel in 2 top corner bars + 1 side bar + 2 bottom corner bars
( Addl to top & bottom Flexural reinforcement )
-
zenith.international got a reaction from UmarMakhzumi in Modeling of FRPs Bar in ETABS
Please first refer to the ACI documents for Design of Concrete Structures using FRP BARS. Simply using the software does not guarantee the correctness of structural design.
I see you are in Nanjing University in China. Are you doing graduate work there or working in a design office ?
-
zenith.international got a reaction from WR1 in Ubc Vs Ibc-2003 (For Seismic Calculations)
I will develop the Text for KBCA bylaws to replace the current clause in Chapter 11 of KBCA by laws.
In the mean while need volunteers to develop list of Enginners with email addresses so the revised Text can be sent to them and they Endorse it.
We start with local Bodies, like KBCA and then towards PEC for revising the Building Code of Pakistan Seismic Provisions 2007.
Prof.Dr. Shoaib Ahmad
-
zenith.international got a reaction from UmarMakhzumi in Ubc Vs Ibc-2003 (For Seismic Calculations)
That is the intention
-
zenith.international got a reaction from UmarMakhzumi in Ubc Vs Ibc-2003 (For Seismic Calculations)
Dear All:
[1] Please note that Structural Designers in Pakistan are still using DEFUNCT UBC-97. I am a one person team trying to change this practice.
[2] In addition, by using ETABS, they use UBC-97 and latest ACI & ASCE CODES, which is incorrect.
-
zenith.international got a reaction from WR1 in Seismic Design Guide For Masonry Buildings
Please note that this book uses the Canadian Code.
One must also look at a companion book that uses the ACI code.
-
zenith.international got a reaction from Badar (BAZ) in Ubc Vs Ibc-2003 (For Seismic Calculations)
The response of Umar Makhzuni is comprehensive, clear and correct.
In addition, following should be noted.
It is advisable that all designs in Pakistan adhere to IBC rather than UBC-97, which is now considered defunct.
Use of UBC-97 with latest resistance codes for structural concrete (like ACI 318-05, 318-08, 318-11) and AISC codes with publication dates after 1997 is technically incorrect and must be avoided.
I hope that structural design community should adapt to the IBC and the appropriate use of resistance codes.
-
zenith.international got a reaction from UmarMakhzumi in Puzzling System In Aci Code
The answer by Waseem is correct and clear.
Best wishes
Zenith International
-
zenith.international got a reaction from UmarMakhzumi in Minimum Reinfocement Criteria For Crack Control
In our opinion, the observation made below is correct and thus a designer is allowed to increase the minimum steel ratio depending upon the restraint of the structure.
"Where structural walls or columns provide significant restraint to shrinkage and temperature movements, the restrain of volume changes causes tension in slabs, as well as displacements, shear forces, and flexural moments in columns or walls. In these cases, it may be necessary to increase the amount of slab reinforcement required by 7.12.2.1 due to the shrinkage and thermal effects in both principal directions (see References 7.7 and 7.16)."
Thus for crack control (as serviceability limit) one can use the following "For a maximum design crack width of 0.3 mm (as is commonly specified in codes of practice), it appears that for the restrained slabs tested in this study a reinforcement area of greater than about 270 mm2 (ρ = 0.0045) would be satisfactory" Best wishes Zenith International
-
zenith.international got a reaction from UmarMakhzumi in Ubc Vs Ibc-2003 (For Seismic Calculations)
The response of Umar Makhzuni is comprehensive, clear and correct.
In addition, following should be noted.
It is advisable that all designs in Pakistan adhere to IBC rather than UBC-97, which is now considered defunct.
Use of UBC-97 with latest resistance codes for structural concrete (like ACI 318-05, 318-08, 318-11) and AISC codes with publication dates after 1997 is technically incorrect and must be avoided.
I hope that structural design community should adapt to the IBC and the appropriate use of resistance codes.