Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
CMU Wall Effective Flange Width[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: CMU Wall Effective Flange Width
- From: "Chris Banbury" <cbanbury(--nospam--at)nicholson-engineering.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:44:11 -0500
I'm analyzing a wall for a 15' high, single story, 8" CMU, hip roof, residential structure for out of plane bending under wind loads. Two (2) vertically reinforced cells are located 6' on center. Would it be inappropriate to assign an effective compression flange width of 56" (48" + 8") or even 72" rather than 48" (6*T)? While I would expect ACI 530 to be pretty clear on this, it appears that the MDG uses this kind of rationalization in assigning effective flange widths greater that 48" in the design of pilasters where 6*T is permitted on either side of the pilaster. It appears that the a literal interpretation would penalize the use of double reinforced cells spaced more than 48" o.c.. The ACI 530-02 Sec. 22.214.171.124 further complicates the matter by specifying the effective flange width "per bar" which would seem to indicate that the effective flange width could be much larger than 48" for an 8" wall where two adjacent reinforced cells are used. In short, it appears that if a bar is placed in two adjacent cells located 6' o.c. that 'b' would be limited by 's' or 72" not '6T per bar'.
Christopher A. Banbury, PE
Nicholson Engineering Associates, Inc.
PO Box 12230, Brooksville, FL 34603
7468 Horse Lake RD, Brooksville, FL 34601
(352) 799-0170 (o)
(352) 754-9167 (f)
- Prev by Subject: Re: CMU Wall Design for Out-of-Plane Loads
- Next by Subject: RE: CMU Wall Effective Flange Width
- Previous by thread: RE: Philosophy of School Design - Was: Long Beach CA
- Next by thread: RE: CMU Wall Effective Flange Width