Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Tension equations for anchors in CMU

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Joe:

I doubt it is a typo...if so, then it is a typo that has existed since the
1995 edition of the MSJC (ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402).  So, I have to believe
that if it was in fact a typo, that SOMEONE would have caught it in the
past 9+ years.

I believe eq 2-4 is the allowable stress method for a necessary "cone
breakout strength" reduction when the anchor bolts are too close to the
edge of a wall relative to the embedment depth.  In such a case, the
"breakout cone" will be truncated.

It likely does not "match" well with the similar provisions in the
strength chapter as they have not really been "coordinated" as of yet (to
my knowledge at least).  So, the strength chapter handles that reduction a
little different.

I will ask someone that I know on the committee for their thought.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Joe Grill wrote:

> A couple of days of slack time have prompted a flurry of posts to the list
> by yours truly.  Today, I'm trying to put together a small spread sheet for
> allowable tension for an anchor in the top of a CMU wall.  Not a big deal
> for hand calcs, and I've done this a number of times, but I'm trying to
> minimize embedment requirements for holdown anchors possible being a little
> more "custom" from job to job as embedment depths I've called out before
> tended to be pretty conservative for more lightly loaded holdowns.  Most
> stem wall construction around here is CMU.
>
>
>
> I hadn't noticed this before, but equation 2-4 in ACI 530/02 uses l sub be
> for one determination of A sub p.  The definition for l sub be seems
> incorrect for the tension application and should be used for shear
> applications toward a free edge.  The strength design section uses l sub b
> for calculating A sub pt.  The definition for A sub pt and the explanation
> for overlapping cones and deduction of areas of A sub pt which fall outside
> the masonry surface, seems to make more sense, and I think should be used in
> the service load equations also.  Is there a typo error?  Has there been any
> errata's?  The way equation 2-4 is written seems extremely conservative to
> me.
>
>
>
> So, wazup?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joseph R. Grill, P.E. (Structural)
>
> Shephard - Wesnitzer, Inc.
>
> Civil Engineering and Surveying
>
> 1146 W. Hwy 89A Suite B
>
> Sedona, AZ  86340
>
> PHONE (928) 282-1061
>
> FAX (928) 282-2058
>
> jgrill(--nospam--at)swiaz.com
>
>
>
>  <http://inet/index.htm>
>
>
>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********