Dear RAM Concept team,
I am designing a slab to the Eurocode.
I have a uniform mat on top and bottom (User reinforcement) with an amount of reinforcement larger than the minimum required -chapter 9.3.1.1 (3)- and spacing smaller than the maximum allowed. When I audit the section I can verify that is considering CORRECTLY the minimum reinforcement from the code “As” and the maximum spacing “s” from the code. But it seems it doesn’t identify my mat and always needs additional reinforcement due to “Rule Set Design, Code Minimum Design”. Could you please test it on your machines and tell me if it is me doing something stupid or you have the same problem?
Thanks a lot, regards
The code minimum check is working as expected in a test model here. If you would like us to review your model, please share it using the Secure File Upload link at the bottom of the page and then post the file name here.
Also, note that the code minimum check is applied separately to the top and bottom layers. More on that is discussed under "What is the significance of defining the reinforcement “Slab Face”: Top, Bottom, or Both?" on the web page below:
http://communities.bentley.com/products/structural/structural_analysis___design/w/structural_analysis_and_design__wiki/8362
Hi. I have uploaded the file, called
test EN1992 Min Reinf.cpt
In this sub-model RAM adds only a few bars but this behaviour is much more pronounced on my real model.
Please, find in the next picture:
why the governing case doesn't prevail?
and, the most important, why doesn't it identify my user reinforcement mat as enough reinforcement?
Thanks, bye
It appears that you are auditing the design check for Design Pass 0. If so, all user reinforcement is removed in this design pass, which is why Existing Reinforcement As = 0. Pass 0 was created solely for the purpose of span detailing. User defined reinforcement may be in excess of what is required and it is not required to extend this reinforcement over the entire span. The Pass 0 design is intended to represent the minimum reinforcement required at the cross section, which is then span detailed in accordance with the selected design code. This is why the user reinforcement is removed in Pass 0.
The Pass 1 design includes the user reinforcement and any additional program reinforcement required to satisfy the code checks, but does not include the Pass 0 reinforcement. The Pass 2 design, which typically include shear and ductility checks, use the cumulative design from Pass 0 and Pass 2. The Final Design Pass includes any rebar designed in Pass 1 and Pass 2 but not less than the rebar required in Pass 0. This pass is intended to represent the capacity based on the final quantity of rebar. For this pass, the Pass 0 and Pass 1 & 2 results are enveloped.
In this case, the user reinforcement is not orthogonal to the cross sections and, as a result, is at a slight skew to the detailed program reinforcement. This skew and small differences in bar size and elevation cause problems for the enveloping discussed above.
Since the user reinforcement is defined as a continuous mat across the entire slab, you may want to disable span detailing by editing the span segments and changing CS (and MS) Span Detailer to “None.” If this is done, you will see that the program reinforcement associated with the Code Minimum check is removed.