Could someone clarify for me how the axes are defined in the Connection Pad parameters for anchor shear reinforcing? RAM Connection allows inputting the number of shear bars in the major axis and minor axis directions. Are these axes defined consistently when using RAM Connection Standalone and RAM Connection inside of RSS or RAM Elements? Are they defined based on column strong/weak axis or baseplate longitudinal/transverse dimension or something else? I've just gotten some seemingly inconsistent results, where changing the number of shear bars in the anticipated axis didn't affect my calcs for anchor reinforcement in shear, but changing the number in the other axis did. It didn't seem to jive with what ACI labels as bars being effective for anchor reinforcement in Figure R17.5.2.9b in ACI 318-14 (D6.2.9 in the older ACI code). But maybe that was because of different column orientation or something changing what RAM considered the effective axis from one baseplate connection to the other. Any help is much appreciated. Thanks!
Yes, that would help a lot. We have the same confusion here.
Yes, I believe that would help clear things up. It would be verrryyy cool if the dxf could show this reinforcement!!!
Thanks, Karl. One clarification: in your reply, you said "Shear anchor reinforcement in the major direction increases the shear capacity in the major direction (V2 and Axis 2 below). Shear anchor reinforcement in the major direction increases the shear capacity in the major direction (V3 amd axis 3 below)." I'm assuming that 2nd statement was about the minor axis and not supposed to repeat the word major.
But in RAM Connection Standalone, I'm seeing behavior where the anchor reinforcing shear bars in the minor axis direction are what has to be increased to reduce overstresses in the Major Axis design check for "Group of Anchors reinforcement in shear". Wouldn't this be exactly opposite of what ACI is showing for anchor reinforcing for shear (screenshot below)? My HSS column is in a longitudinal orientation, so the braces - and the shear - should be on the major axis. Therefore the bars to develop that force on the other side of the failure cone would also need to be aligned with the major axis. Am I missing something here, or is this incorrect behavior in RCSA similar to what you described in RE and RSS?
Thanks,
Jason
[***Original Post was Edited 4/7/206***]
In RAM Connection Standalone, shear V2 is the major axis shear and is parallel to local axis 2 and shear V3 is the minor axis shear and is parallel to local axis 3. See screen capture below. Shear anchor reinforcement in the major direction increases the shear capacity in the minor direction (V3 and Axis 3 below). Shear anchor reinforcement in the minor direction increases the shear capacity in the major direction (V2 and axis 2 below).
In RAM Elements, the orientation of the column defines the local axis of the column. Like RAM Connection Standalone, Vu2 is the major axis sear and is parallel to the local 2 axis and Vu3 is the minor axis shear and is parallel to the local 3 axis. Like Standalone, I find that anchor reinforcement in the major direction increases the capacity associated with minor direction (Vu3 and local axis 3), and anchor reinforcement in the minor directions increases the capacity associated with the major direction (Vu2 and local axis 2).
In RAM Structural System, the orientation of the column is associated with the angle in the XY Plane. Similar to RAM Elements, Vmajor shear is major axis shear and the same as V2 in the screen capture above and Vminor is the minor axis shear and the same as V3. Like RAM Elements and Standalone, I find that anchor reinforcement in the major direction increases the capacity associated with minor direction (Vu3 and local axis 3), and anchor reinforcement in the minor directions increases the capacity associated with the major direction (Vu2 and local axis 2).