几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量  


返回   几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量 » 三维空间:产品设计或CAX软件使用 » CAD设计 » 产品功能分析
用户名
密码
注册 帮助 会员 日历 银行 搜索 今日新帖 标记论坛为已读


 
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-10, 12:57 PM   #1
huangyhg
超级版主
 
huangyhg的头像
 
注册日期: 04-03
帖子: 18592
精华: 36
现金: 249466 标准币
资产: 1080358888 标准币
huangyhg 向着好的方向发展
默认 masonry wall jambs

masonry wall jambs
when designing a masonry wall jamb at a door or window opening can you use the effective width in compression as defined in aci530 (least of c/c bar spacing, six time wall thickness, or 72鈥? or should it logically be half that?
does anyone else find that this tends to be a weak link in a masonry wall system particularly if the openings are large and the walls are tall? i鈥檝e been using concrete columns or 12鈥?thick jambs often on large overhead doors.
i think you could prove that the effective width is 6t by using the horizontal joint reinforcement to transfer the load from the opening back into the wall. however, i typically reinforce the first one, two or three cores at opening jambs for the additional wind load coming off the opening. re
thanks dave, but
all to often the 6t is superceded by tighter reinf. spacing, generally 48" oc, cutting the effective compressive width to 28". it's been difficult to explain to architects that the maximum opening size must be less than the typical bar spacing because of the reduction of nearly half the wall section spanning vertically.
yeah, i specify to grout and reinf. multiple jamb cores where it works but still have difficulty with large openings.
i should mention that most of my work is in the high wind areas of south florida. we use the hollow precast lintels with notched bearings to allow the reinforcment to pass thru the first core.
i have a couple of ideas. first, try using two bars in each core, to increase "d". second, try using the ultimate strength method in the ibc. this will almost surely give you better results.
daveatkins
aci 2.1.7.1 page c-18 effective bearing is bp width + 4t. see also figure 2.1-15 on cc-29. this is for running bond.
the c.c. spacing between bars or 72" should be referring to the maximum effective wall width per bar. that means, the maximum effective flange width for compression corresponding to a bar at yeild, for beam action.
these are two diffent issues.
the effective jamb width should be the bp + 4t. this should be the maximum design width also for bending for wind jamb, unless the jamb as mentioned earlier is broken or discontinuous at the lintel bearing.
__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言:前进吧,你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]
huangyhg离线中   回复时引用此帖
GDT自动化论坛(仅游客可见)
 


主题工具 搜索本主题
搜索本主题:

高级搜索
显示模式

发帖规则
不可以发表新主题
不可以回复主题
不可以上传附件
不可以编辑您的帖子

vB 代码开启
[IMG]代码开启
HTML代码关闭

相似的主题
主题 主题发起者 论坛 回复 最后发表
masonry foundation wall huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-10 12:40 PM
masonry cemen huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-10 12:28 PM
in enercalc masonry wall design, what is parapet heigh huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 07:17 PM
foundation wall 40 feet below grade huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 01:38 PM
existing masonry wall and sliding foundation huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 08:55 AM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 11:48 AM.


于2004年创办,几何尺寸与公差论坛"致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T | GPS研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量"。免责声明:论坛严禁发布色情反动言论及有关违反国家法律法规内容!情节严重者提供其IP,并配合相关部门进行严厉查处,若內容有涉及侵权,请立即联系我们QQ:44671734。注:此论坛须管理员验证方可发帖。
沪ICP备06057009号-2
更多