Going through the exercise of creating these two spreadsheets and comparing them to StruCalc's Output finally got me motivated enough to finally open up the ACI 318. The output of the square footing calculator looks like the following: The updated stemwall calculator and the square footing calculator: EnerCalc KootK (Structural) 25 Dec 14 18:04 in brackets next to the transverse reinforcement: (unnecessary).Īnyhow, feedback or comments on these two tools would be helpful.Ī confused student is a good student. Okay, another observation, in the print preview screen of the StruCalc app. Most continuous footings for single story residences that I see are typically 12" wide and 6" deep with (2) #4 bars horizontal cont. Typically I've seen 1 to 3 longitudinal #4 bars. In residential construction I have never seen this done except for point loaded square footings. #4 bars placed transverse to the stemwall. I am liking StruCalc's very simple interface however the one thing I am noticing with StruCalc for a continuous footing (when reinforcement is enabled) the callout for a min. Has anyone had experience with either of these software products in this capacity? I've recently been testing software for the design of residential and light commercial square and continuous footings.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |