Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

# RE: Reinforced conc bms with widely-spaced transverse reinf ... FEMA 356

• To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
• Subject: RE: Reinforced conc bms with widely-spaced transverse reinf ... FEMA 356
• From: "Jason W. Kilgore" <jkilgore(--nospam--at)leok.com>
• Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:49:53 -0500

I don't think this is a linear relationship as you indicated.  I believe the
strength reductions are more in line with how many stirrups are engaged with
a shear crack.

At S < d/2, a crack will engage at least 2 stirrups, which is the minimum
basis for design.

At d/2 < S < d, a crack might only engage 1 stirrup, so you reduce the
strength from the equation by 50%.

At d < S, a crack can form that completely bypasses all shear stirrups.  If
the crack bypasses the stirrups your steel design strength is zero, even if
you did provide steel.

So yes, there *is* a sudden drop off in strength when the spacing is
slightly more than d/2.  A crack either can or cannot form that misses the
steel, so there is no gradual change.

Also, this is based on memory and a 45 deg. angle shear crack.  I may be off
on some of the specifics, including the actual angle of the crack, but the
core premise is what I learned back in graduate concrete design classes.

---
Jason Kilgore
Leigh & O'Kane, LLC
Kansas City, Missouri

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gale45man [mailto:gale45man(--nospam--at)yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:13 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Reinforced conc bms with widely-spaced transverse reinf ... FEMA
> 356
>
> In reinf conc bms with transverse reinf spacing s >
> d/2, FEMA 356 6.4.4 says  Vs  shall be assumed not
> more than 50% effective, and it goes on to say that
> for s >= d, Vs = 0.
>
> Obviously the transverse reinforcement becomes less
> and less effective as the spacing increases beyond
> d/2, and zero at s = d, but I can't believe it
> instantly drops 50% if the spacing is just a little
> bit beyond d/2.
>
> Does anyone know if there a research/testing basis for
> this FEMA requirement?
>
> Also, why not say the shear steel is 100% effective at
> d/2, dropping linearly to 0% effective at d?
>
> Thanks,
> d a v e  e v a n s
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted