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

RE: Post-Tensioned CMU

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I don't see P/T of a CMU wall as a viable option for the following reasons:

1. The cost of P/T would not be justified unless the project size was
substancial.

2.  The quality control and qualified contractors may be a problem.

3.  The end-block design on a slender wall will produce large splitting
forces which would be difficult to handle in the perpindicular direction at
the top of the wall.

4.  The compressive strength of the concrete masonry units relative to the
grout, which I'm sure is necessary, should be equal; if not, high stress
concentrations may result.

 A possible option would be to use P/T pilasters, with sufficient area for
end-block reinforcement and compressive strength resistance, and run the CMU
wall between them using a combination of bond beams, dur-o-wal, vertical
steel in grouted cells, etc., to provide a long wall segment.  


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mark Webster [SMTP:markdwebster(--nospam--at)hotmail.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, February 21, 2001 8:36 AM
> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject:	Post-Tensioned CMU
> 
> Has anybody tried using post-tensioning strands instead of mild 
> reinforcement for CMU vertical reinforcement? Are there any proprietary 
> systems out there which use this approach? Is it necessary to grout the 
> cells if post-tensioning is used?
> 
> I'm trying to determine whether this is a viable option for CMU 
> reinforcement.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --Mark
> 
> Mark D. Webster
> Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
> 297 Broadway
> Arlington, MA  02474
> 781-643-2000
> mdwebster(--nospam--at)sgh.com
> www.sgh.com
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 
>