The current MASS approach in Version 4.0 means that linear elastic deflections are over-corrected in a way that largely overestimates demand, making ductility verifications far more difficult. Many shear wall designs require that a ductility verification be performed and satisfied. While the software has a number of systems in Read more…
The storey-by-storey design approach currently in MASS can excessively amplify shear forces beyond expected results In cases where a bug or other issue is found in the MASS software, announcements are posted on the software’s known bugs page, as well as on this page here. It is always encouraged Read more…
With MASS Version 4.0 moving into Multi-Storey Shear Wall design, why doesn’t the software check for something that seems squarely within its expanded scope? Dating back a few years in the MASS development process, a lot of work was put into adding the capability for the software to check Read more…
The addition of boundary elements to MASS Version 4 (as well as CSA S304-14) means that failing a ductility verification is not the end of the line Boundary elements allow for the confinement of reinforcement in compression. Not only does this unlock more flexural capacity as steel in compression Read more…
Explaining these clauses and how they are applied Questions about the seismic effects on shear resistance? Click here for a separate post. This page covers the scaling up of seismic forces applied to the wall. You may have noticed after running a few designs in the newly released MASS Read more…
Taking seismic effects into account in MASS can be confusing. Seeing factored shear forces scaled up by over 100% in some cases may seem larger than expected. The main post found here outlines the clauses being invoked here where the requirements are broken down into two parts: A and B. Read more…