×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

CMU allowable unbraced heights

CMU allowable unbraced heights

CMU allowable unbraced heights

(OP)
I have a 30' tall unbraced interior load-bearing wall (not a shear wall, just picking up .2klf DL + .2klf LL roof loads, in Seismic Cat 'A'). Per Enercalc design, can use 8" CMU w/ #5 @ 32" o.c. But I see in ACI 530 Table 5.5.1 that max allowable height/thickness ratio = 18. To meet this criteria would mean that I couldn't even use 12" CMU here.

Similarly, I have a 24' tall exterior load-bearing shear wall on same project - still not very heavily loaded & I can easily reinforce it to meet allowable capacity requirements. But 12" CMU wouldn't meet the above h/t ratio here either.

Are there any exceptions to this h/t ratio criteria?

RE: CMU allowable unbraced heights

Try reading the title of Chapter 5.

RE: CMU allowable unbraced heights

Traditional codes for masonry derived from traditional practices that used sturdy bearing walls, the sole ones thought (and seen) to stand the challenges of time. For example, the DIN code of the sixties that I remember only allowed single wythe bearing inner walls 12 cm thick (maybe 15) for two floors loading, the exterior walls started at no less of 25 cm (maybe 30) thick as a minimum, and all were to be prudently engaged at quite short counterfort orthogonal walls at say 3 to 5 meters. This for story heights say of under 3 m.

So if such were the practices of old, it is quite unlikely that more modern codes, that have added to the lack of confidence in masonries, even when reinforced, may be more lenient on slenderness/stability issues.

For these cases where some degree of slenderness is wanted an embedded steel structure may be the solution.

RE: CMU allowable unbraced heights

(OP)
Thanks, steve1.  Not so much, SteelPE.

RE: CMU allowable unbraced heights

I may add that here (Spain) it is also the case that engineered walls both now and recent decades, reinforced and unreinforced may have been designed slender when proven correct, and now exist also software that usually does the task, since when reasonably laid, bearing masonry can show very reasonable stresses. With the general enforcement of reinforced masonry (if well built to good engineered practice) this ***should*** not cause particular problem; I contrarily would be quite wary of non-stabilized tall unreinforced walls in almost any situation; and unconfortable with the reinforced cases if bemusing chunks big enough could go unattached.

RE: CMU allowable unbraced heights

Just trying to point out the fact that the title of chapter 5 was "Empirical Design of Masonry".  Meaning not engineered.  If you engineer the wall you will use either Chapter 2 or Chapter 3.  Chapter 5 does not apply in those instances where you engineer the masonry.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources