Leap Bridge Concrete should be consistent in applying a single version of the AASHTO specifications for STM compression strut checks. The software currently appears to use provisions from different code editions, which can lead to confusion when verifying results and performing independent hand calculations. A consistent implementation of one AASHTO version would improve transparency and confidence in the reported capacities. Additionally, I recommend providing a clearer description of the "Width of All Struts" input parameter. For a long time, I interpreted this input as the width of the strut measured in the global X-direction. However, through comparison with the program calculations, it appears that the intended value is: width of all struts = nodal area / cap width.
This relationship is not obvious from the current documentation or user interface and should be clarified in the help documentation and/or directly within the input dialog. Finally, I recommend adding the ability to define and evaluate multiple STM models within a single design. Different load combinations may be controlled by different STM models. Allowing multiple STM models would provide greater flexibility and more accurately represent real-world design conditions.
Leap Bridge Concrete should be consistent in applying a single version of the AASHTO specifications for STM compression strut checks. The software currently appears to use provisions from different code editions, which can lead to confusion when verifying results and performing independent hand calculations. A consistent implementation of one AASHTO version would improve transparency and confidence in the reported capacities. Additionally, I recommend providing a clearer description of the "Width of All Struts" input parameter. For a long time, I interpreted this input as the width of the strut measured in the global X-direction. However, through comparison with the program calculations, it appears that the intended value is: width of all struts = nodal area / cap width.
This relationship is not obvious from the current documentation or user interface and should be clarified in the help documentation and/or directly within the input dialog. Finally, I recommend adding the ability to define and evaluate multiple STM models within a single design. Different load combinations may be controlled by different STM models. Allowing multiple STM models would provide greater flexibility and more accurately represent real-world design conditions.