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

RE: CMU wall effective length

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Why does the slender wall section for concrete
allow for the 2:1 projection slope but not the
slender wall section for CMU?  I don't see any
real difference.

Mark Pemberton, P.E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M. [mailto:HaanSM(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 8:58 AM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
Subject: RE: CMU wall effective length


1997 UBC 2106.2.7 indicates 4*t+bearing but you cannot transmit load across
continuous vertical joints [Section 2106 "general design requirements"].
This is in the general design requirements and I cannot anywhere the UBC
masonry "strength design" slenderwall section contradicts it.

Scott M Haan 
Plan Review Engineer
Building Safety Division http://www.muni.org/building
Development Services Department
Municipality of Anchorage
phone:907-343-8183  fax:907-249-7399
mailto:haansm(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Pemberton [mailto:Markp(--nospam--at)lbdg.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 6:56 AM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
Subject: CMU wall effective length


For a vertical point load on a masonry wall, what is the common
practice for determining the effective length for which this
load can be spread?  Would the 4t+bearing area rule apply
or should a sloped projection be used?

Mark Pemberton, P.E..