Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: ACI318-05: Minimum Reinforcements[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: ACI318-05: Minimum Reinforcements
- From: "Jim Getaz" <jgetaz(--nospam--at)shockeyprecast.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 07:41:26 -0400
I think you will find the experimental reasons for corbel design if you read Reference 11.1, as noted in the Commentary. If there was no difference in behavior with beams, Committee 318 would not have a separate section. It is different from the minimum beam reinforcement because it is a concrete shear provision: it is intended to keep the corbel from failing in shear. There is no exception for 11.9.5.
Asc of 11.9.5 and Asc of 11.9.4 are the same. However, there are two equations for Asc, and the larger is used, see 22.214.171.124.
Continuous ledges are not the same. The longitudinal bars in continuous ledges help transfer point loads to more of the ledge than the width of a usual corbel. So, no, Ah is not required for a continuous ledge. The main steel, As, for a ledge is all at the top of the ledge.
Precast Concrete Engineer
- Prev by Subject: ACI318-05: Minimum Reinforcements
- Next by Subject: Re: AISI 12L14 Steel
- Previous by thread: RE: Backing bar in RBS steel moment connection
- Next by thread: Concrete Overlay