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

RE: FLAT SLAB REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENT

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
David 

You raised a very good point.

I contacted Mr. Basile Rabbat with PCA for an interpretation on this issue.
His opinion is that if you end up with different size bars in adjacent
spans, you can splice the two bars beyond the column line of the longer
span, with proper splice length for the larger bar. He definitely does not
think that you need to carry the largest bar for the entire length of the
slab.

By the way his phone number is 847-966-6200.

Hope this helps.

Ben Yousefi
	-----Original Message-----
	From:	ASLCSE(--nospam--at)aol.com [SMTP:ASLCSE(--nospam--at)aol.com]
	Sent:	Saturday, May 08, 1999 10:27 AM
	To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
	Subject:	Re: FLAT SLAB REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENT

	In a message dated 5/4/99 6:25:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
taco1(--nospam--at)home.com 
	writes:

	>  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
	>  
	I think it is a good insurance.....
	Antonio S. Luisoni
	Consulting SE