Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: CMU

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
PRSE(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:
> 
> If I may be so bold:  8" CMU, which is 27" tall is a bit too tall for my taste.  

By all means, be bold...

To further describe my situation, the overall height of wall (top of
parapet) is 27'-4". Unsupported height is 24'-6" to top of ledger, TJI
roof, not panelized. I won't bore you with the previous conversations
I've had with the owner and architect about thicker walls or pilasters.

davem(--nospam--at)endex.com wrote:
>
>Also coundn't get comfortable with using 12" CMU on a wall that the >calculations say could be 8".  Our answer was 10" block.

Hadn't thought of this Dave, this might be an option for my situation.

PRSE(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:
>
>I'm glad to see somebody else doesn't always go by the "numbers".  As >we say in our office, "The building doesn't know what you designed it >for." It's up to the engineer to understand his/her design and >calculations to create a poperly functioning structure.

Hmm... don't know if you are glad I, Dave or both of us doesn't always
go by the numbers. I will assume this was not intended as a jab since my
original post questions the "proper functioning" of the Option 1 design.

And why isn't there a lower limit on the reinforcement ratio which might
eliminate the use of the Option 1 wall I described earlier which (and I
repeat) by code is acceptable but by instinct looks weak.

Regards,

Mark D. Baker
Baker Engineering