Can anyone review my input file and let me what might be the problem. When I do a reinforced concrete column design I get the message " ** SECTION IS NOT ADEQUATE, No bar is available for confining reinforcement" but when I increase the section to 700mm x 700mm everything is OK except my column reinforcement ratios are too less in the range of .3% to 0.8%. I can decipher this has something to do with confining reinforcement but I am not really sure the exact problem is. Please advise.
Karma
Change the minimum main reinforcement from 12 to 20. All the column will be designed.
hi Suresh,
Thank you for your help. I did change the minmain to 20 dia and all columns were designed as you said. But my reinforcement ratios are very low in the range of .3 to 1%. When I change my column size to 600 x 600, my columns again do get designed. I have a gut feeling my rebar % will be around only 1%-1.5% even when my column is 600 x 600, which is pefectly adequate (indian standard allows till 4%). Why do not understand why it says that there is no bar for confining reinforcement when my column is 600x 600 or 500 x500. I would appreciate your input, for that matter anyone's input in this forum.
thanks
I have obseved one more discrepancy in your input file. While defining IS 1893 you have input the value for ST as 3. It should be 1. The column section assigned by you is too big. You may reduce the size to 450x450 . The colmns are most likely to pass through with max 2% steel
Dear Sir,
I have designed an RCC structure with Stilt+Ground+5 floors. I do not understand why I am getting ** SECTION IS NOT ADEQUATE..Reinforcement % exceeds maximum limit** error for almost all the columns. Columns are not getting checked even for a size of 300X600 MM. Please help me out. I want to know whether there is any mistake in what I did. If not what is the solution for this issue. I am attaching my .std file here.
Thank you in advance0458.Gayatri garu- S+G+5.std.
Gayatri garu- S+G+5(Modified).stdDear Sai Charan,
I analyzed your model completely and came across a major discrepancy. While defining wind load definitions, the height versus intensity columns were filled wrongly (the values have to be interchanged). After making this change, all is fine, all the member are designed.
Regards
Mr. Kaushal Aggarwal