From: "Gregory P. Luth" <gluth(--nospam--at)klaa.com>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 05:15:47 -0700
I would also like to know the genesis of this requirement.
From: David Taquino [mailto:taco1(--nospam--at)home.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 6:19 PM
Subject: FLAT SLAB REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENT
I have a question about the '97 UBC requiring that
reinforcement be continuous in all column strips (bottom
bars). The '94
UBC allowed 50% of the bars to be cut-off, the '97 does
not. I looked
it up in ACI 318-95 and found figure 13.3.8 to show the
same thing as
the '97 UBC. The reasoning behind this was to provide a
way for the
load to redistribute to adjacent columns in the case of
punching shear failure. So I take this as saying I need
to continue my
bottom bars through regardless of the different span
seems too conservative...?
Any help or clarification would be appreciated.
David Taquino, EIT
Libby Engineers, Inc.
San Diego, CA
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server.
* subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to
* admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message type
* "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send
* to admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message
* type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send
* email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email
* send to the list is public domain and may be
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org