Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: UBC Section 1633.2.8

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I went to the same SEAO meeting and they never said anything about the
straps/bolts being attached to or hooked around
the reinforcing steel.  Others put words in the speekers mouth.  You have
answered your question.  Yes, what they said was that the straps/bolts must
be detailed such that they engage the reinforcing steel when loads are
transferred through them.  This only means that the pull-out cone has to
effectively engage the reinforcing steel.  The idea is to prevent the
strap/bolt from simply pulling the cone of concrete
away from the wall.

B. Vinson



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Kipp Martin [SMTP:KAMartin(--nospam--at)carollo.com]
> Sent:	Monday, October 12, 1998 5:16 PM
> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject:	UBC Section 1633.2.8
> 
> Greetings All,
> 
> I just attended a seminar put on by SEAO here in Portland that talked
> about many of the seismic provisions in the 1997 UBC.  One of the
> provisions that prompted much discussion and disagreement was Section
> 1633.2.8, which states in part that for masonry and concrete walls "...in
> Seismic Zones 3 and 4, diaphragm to wall anchorage using embedded straps
> shall have the straps attached to or hooked around the reinforcing steel
> or otherwise terminated to effectively transfer forces to the reinforcing
> steel.".  It was the "or otherwise terminated" part that caused the
> disagreement.  Some felt that the strap had to be hooked around or
> physically attached to the reinforcing steel.  Others said that it was
> necessary only to have the reinforcing steel cross the strap's shear cone.
> I would like to hear other opinions.
> 
> Kipp Martin, P. E.  
> 
> 
>