Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: CMU Wall Effective Flange Width[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: CMU Wall Effective Flange Width
- From: "Kestner, James W." <jkestner(--nospam--at)somervilleinc.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:50:14 -0600
I have forwarded this question to a member of the ACI 530 comittee and this is the response......
Yes, very interesting question. It brings up
what appears to be an inconsistency in MSJC.
Section 220.127.116.11.3 permits 6t each side of the pilaster to be considered
effective as the flange. THerefore, the total compression width per
pilaster, is 12 t plus the web width (when there is no movement joint at
the pilaster). Yet, Code 18.104.22.168.1 limits the compression width per bar
to 6t total. It does seem to be justifiable to use 12 t plus the web
width when the pilaster is reinforced, because of Section 22.214.171.124.3.
When the pilaster is in-wall, as in the case of your questioner, it
doesn't make sense that the rules should change. On the other hand,
what is the difference between an in-wall pilaster and a single grouted
reinforcing bar in the wall? Should there be different rules for
unreinforced and reinforced pilasters?
This is an issue for MSJC to resolve.
- Prev by Subject: CMU Wall Effective Flange Width
- Next by Subject: RE: CMU Wall Effective Flange Width
- Previous by thread: CMU Wall Effective Flange Width
- Next by thread: RE: CMU Wall Effective Flange Width