Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Masonry reinforcement lap length in IBC 2003

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill & List,
I recently attended a masonry seminar in Toronto, and
someone asked Prof Bob Drysdale who has written a few
texts on masonry about the US lap requirements.  If I
remember correctly, he said they were suspect and to
stick to Can requirements for now.  You are stuck with
your code requirements but I would continue to question
them as much as possible.

Gary


On 17 Nov 2004 at 12:38, Sherman, William wrote:

> I got alot of grief from a contractor for specifying such splice
> lengths for #6 bars on a recent project - it makes the mason's work
> very difficult. I was told by NCMA that the splice requirements are
> based on testing done in their laboratory - further testing is being
> done to see if these stringent requirements can be relaxed. As noted
> below, when bars are used with minimum cover, splice lengths become
> very long, especially for #6 bars. 
> 
> 
> William C. Sherman, PE 
> (Bill Sherman) 
> CDM, Denver, CO
> Phone: 303-298-1311
> Fax: 303-293-8236
> email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)cdm.com
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Topete [mailto:davetopete(--nospam--at)yahoo.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:44 AM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: Masonry reinforcement lap length in IBC 2003
> > 
> > Fraid so...
> > IBC governs.  I guess there was a grad student somewhere (I 
> > recently read, but can't remember
> > where..) that did various testing of lap splices in masonry.  
> > Essentially, the equation in IBC gives results consistent 
> > with the testing.  I'm sure there will be someone to 
> > give/cite specific info regarding the background.
> > David Topete, PE
> > SF, CA
> > --- Wesley Werner <wwerner(--nospam--at)conewago.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >     I am wondering if I am misinterpereting the code. My question 
> > > relates to IBC 2003 equation 21-2 vs ACI 530-02 equation 
> > 2-9. The ACI equation is giving me a 36" lap length for a #6 bar.
> > > However, as I interpret IBC section 2107.2.3 it supercedes this
> > > equation
> 
> > with its eq 21-2 which increases my lap length to 65"! The masonry
> > wall is
> a 12"
> > > retaining wall with the following information:
> > > db=.75", fy=60,000 psi,
> > > gama=1.4 for a #6 bar, K=3" (rebar cover), and f'm=1,500. 
> > Do I really need to increase my lap length this much or is there
> > something
> I am 
> > > missing?
> > >  
> > > Wesley C. Werner
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********