Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Concrete cover over conventional reinfor

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Here's another consideration:  Even a 10" footing will only develop a #4
dowel (Ldh = 7" + 3" cover).  So unless there is minimal if any overturning
moment on the footing, even 10" may not be thick enough.

> ----------
> From: 	Yang, Liao/ANC[SMTP:LYang(--nospam--at)CH2M.com]
> Sent: 	Thursday, September 10, 1998 10:26 AM
> To: 	'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject: 	RE: Concrete cover over conventional reinfor
> 
> Roger,
> 
> There are some details using 8" thick reinforced footing in the book
> "Standard Handbook of Structural 
> Details for Building Construction" by Morton Newman (Pages 458, 459 and
> 462,
> 2nd edition).
> There is a example problem 20.11.2.in the book "Reinforced Concrete
> Design"
> by Wang and Salmon,
> 5th Edition, page 908-909. They designed a 9" reinforced wall footing.
> Are
> they wrong?? 
> I have to agree that minimum thickness of reinforced footing shall be 10"
> by
> code. 
> 
> Liao
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Roger Turk [SMTP:73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
> > Sent:	Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:59 AM
> > To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject:	Concrete cover over conventional reinfor
> > 
> > Donn,
> > 
> > I see no conflict between Sections 1907.7.1.1, 1915.7 and Table 18-I-C.
> 
> > These requirements have been in the UBC and ACI Code for years.  Table
> > 18-I-C 
> > specifies minimum footing thicknesses, but doesn't differentiate between
> 
> > reinforced and unreinforced footings.  The requirements of 1915.7
> applies
> > to 
> > reinforced and pile supported footings and certainly complies with Table
> 
> > 18-I-C.  Using the requirements of 1907.7.1.1 and 1915.7 would certainly
> > make 
> > 10 inches the minimum footing thickness for a reinforced footing.
> > 
> > A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
> > Tucson, Arizona
> > 
> > Donn Wooldridge wrote:
> > 
> > . > TO THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED:
> > . > 
> > . > PLEASE REVIEW UBC '97 SECTIONS 1907.7.1.1, 1915.7 AND TABLE 18-1-C
> FOR
> > . > CONCRETE COVEREAGES OF REINFORCING STEEL.
> > . > 
> > . > I INTERPRET A CONFLICT (IN WHICH CASE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE WOULD
> > APPLY")
> > . > IN THESE SECTIONS.
> > . > 
> > . > A PLAN QUESTIONER (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH A PLAN CHECKER OR
> > REVIEWER),
> > . > INSISTS ON A 10" THICK FOOTING FOR SIMPLE FOOTINGS TO CONFORM TO
> > . > 1907.7.1.1??
> > . > 
> > . > OTHER INTERPRETATIONS???
> > . > 
> > . > Donn Wooldridge S.E.& R.A.
> > . > Phoenix, AZ
> > . > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>