Hello,
I am not matching LEAP's operating rating factors for shear (screenshots below) - 0.99 (HL93 Inventory), 1.46 (HL93 Operating), and 0.78 (FL120). I am using the appropriate live load factor for each case. The difference seems to be in the Shear Capacity value used by LEAP as the dead and live loads are consistent between Strength I and Strength II. Does LEAP print the values somewhere that are used in the rating equation? The capacity I use is calculated using the (phi*Vn)/Vu from Print --> Vertical/Horizontal Shear for the governing beam. I did independently verify the moment rating factors and they matched exactly; it is shear I am having trouble with.
Please let me know if you would like the models or the calculation files.
Thanks
Sathvika,
Please make sure you are not using the option of considering the shear reinforcement across the failure plane (see first screen shot below). The shear report does not report Av-provided, and shear capacity for this method. Fort the traditional method of computing Av-provided at location, follow hand calculations for Tutorial 6 (see second screen shot below).
Looking into this further, it appears that checking the FDOT alternative "Shear rf. across failure plane" does not work as intended. In bullet no. (2) in my previous response, the 1.57 rating factor output by LEAP matches closely with the 1.60 hand-calculated factor. I checked the other two shear rating factors - permit Strength II and design inventory and they all match closely when this option is unchecked. Looks like there is an issue inside of conspan when the FDOT alternative is selected for computations. Please confirm if this is the case or if the difference in shear rating factors is caused by something else.
Sathivika, As I did mention to you in my initial response: "The shear report does not report Av-provided, and shear capacity for this method" We are talking about the FDOT alternative of counting stirrups across failure plane. So you cannot use capacity from shear design report for computing the rating factor when FDOT alternative is selected.
Answer Verified By: Sathvika Meenakshisundaram
Alex, this still does not answer my question below. I understand that conspan does not report these values like I acknowledged already in my response. Regarding the shear capacity, I am hand calculating all the numbers.
"Why does the rating factor in LEAP decrease when this option is checked? There seems to be an issue in conspan regarding this option even when stirrup spaces are consistent across the failure plane."
Sathvika, function of POI location and stirrup placement you may miss one stirrup even if the stirrup spacing is constant across failure plane. The method works well if you clearly can intercept more stirrups placed closer than at a given POI.
Thanks, Alex. I ended up verifying the shear ratings for all the beams because for my case, some needed the extra stirrups and for others the multiple shear zones did not apply. I appreciate you looking into this.
Hello, I am still having problems with shear in LEAP. I unchecked the "Consider shear reinf. across failure plane (FDOT Alternative)" under Rating Parameters like suggested. After turning this option off and doing a quick hand calculation to verify the shear rating factors, where I pull the shear capacity, dead loads, and live loads reported by LEAP, the calculated shear rating factors are less than LEAP's.
I am wondering if I should be using a different version?
Can someone please look into this? I can send the models and calculation files, if that will help.
Thank you