ACI 318 12.2.3 vs CRSI Tables
ACI 318 12.2.3 vs CRSI Tables
(OP)
In double checking the development lengths and class a lap-splice lengths for a particular project I calculated the lengths out for each condition encountered on that job and tabulated the results (IE enter table with bar size, coating, conc strength and cover and scroll across to Ld).
In checking out CRSI tabulated lengths upon the suggestion of a superior I have noted that CRSI's Lds differ from values obtained using ACI 318 12.2.3 .
CRSI shows larger lengths for smaller bars but does show some reduced lengths for larger bars.
Can anyone shed light on this?
In checking out CRSI tabulated lengths upon the suggestion of a superior I have noted that CRSI's Lds differ from values obtained using ACI 318 12.2.3 .
CRSI shows larger lengths for smaller bars but does show some reduced lengths for larger bars.
Can anyone shed light on this?






RE: ACI 318 12.2.3 vs CRSI Tables
RE: ACI 318 12.2.3 vs CRSI Tables
This is a CRSI table for "Tension development and Lap Splice Lengths for Bars in Walls and Slabs (ACI 12.2.3)" Published in "Reinforcing Bars: Anchorage and Splices" 2008.
So the table is based on that same calc. I have to assume I'm making the mistake- not CRSI- but if I am I can't see where.
There are variables not addressed by CRSI (like whether to take coating factor as 1.5 or 1.3 which depends on Cb=3*Db) but even if I stay conservative I find CRSI having lower numbers once I get into larger bar
RE: ACI 318 12.2.3 vs CRSI Tables
Hopefully someone points out an error I have made because I'd be much happier with my own inconsistency than inconsistency between two Institutes on which I rely heavily for technical support.
RE: ACI 318 12.2.3 vs CRSI Tables
A MEP guy in my office took a look at the spread sheet and added a bunch of if statements to make it account for code maximums which got my numbers darn close to CRSI.
So rest assured - by our analysis the tables are legit.