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

RE: FLAT SLAB REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENT

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I would also like to know the genesis of this requirement.

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	David Taquino [mailto:taco1(--nospam--at)home.com]
		Sent:	Tuesday, May 04, 1999 6:19 PM
		To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
		Subject:	FLAT SLAB REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENT

		I have a question about the '97 UBC requiring that
positive moment
		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
a single
		punching shear failure.  So I take this as saying I need
to continue my
		bottom bars through regardless of the different span
lengths?  This
		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.
To 
		*   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
email 
		*   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
you 
		*   send to the list is public domain and may be
re-posted 
		*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web

		*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
********