Seemingly Academic Question
Seemingly Academic Question
(OP)
But it's for a real problem.
I'm going to pose this for a reinforced concrete beam design. Say you have a simply supported beam with applied moments at each end such that the beam has a constant moment along its length.
Is there anything that says the reinforcement needs to at the same location along the length of the beam? Specifically, let's say I have three top bars and three bottom bars at the end of the beam, then at some point I need to change to skin reinforcing (Say I just don't want three top and three bottom bars anymore). Can that transition happen without having to use a lap splice?
I'd like to design the reinforcing so that phiMn for both sets of reinforcing exceeds Mu. I'd like to pick some convenient location and fully develop both sets of reinforcing on both sides of this arbitrary location. Let's say the beam is deep enough such that the three top and bottom bars cannot be considered to lap with the skin reinforcement where I change it up.
I'll admit this doesn't feel as clean as running the reinforcement continuous, but I don't see anything technically incorrect with this approach. I actually have a need to do this, but would appreciate some input.
I'm going to pose this for a reinforced concrete beam design. Say you have a simply supported beam with applied moments at each end such that the beam has a constant moment along its length.
Is there anything that says the reinforcement needs to at the same location along the length of the beam? Specifically, let's say I have three top bars and three bottom bars at the end of the beam, then at some point I need to change to skin reinforcing (Say I just don't want three top and three bottom bars anymore). Can that transition happen without having to use a lap splice?
I'd like to design the reinforcing so that phiMn for both sets of reinforcing exceeds Mu. I'd like to pick some convenient location and fully develop both sets of reinforcing on both sides of this arbitrary location. Let's say the beam is deep enough such that the three top and bottom bars cannot be considered to lap with the skin reinforcement where I change it up.
I'll admit this doesn't feel as clean as running the reinforcement continuous, but I don't see anything technically incorrect with this approach. I actually have a need to do this, but would appreciate some input.






RE: Seemingly Academic Question
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
BA
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
BA
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
BA
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
BA
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
12.14.2.3 — Bars spliced by noncontact lap splices
in flexural members shall not be spaced transversely
farther apart than the smaller of one-fifth the required
lap splice length, and 6 in.
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
I did read that and that's exactly why I'm "lapping" (I say lapping only for lack of a better word here) the two sets of bars by ld1 + ld2. If you read the commentary to 12.14.2.3 it says that the spacing limit is provided to ensure you don't get an unreinforced section failing with a zigzag crack.
The "lap" of ld1 + ld2 ensures that at any section there is adequate moment capacity from either set of reinforcing. What this means is that at any location along the beam, one, and only one, set of reinforcing is capable of providing phiMn>Mu.
That's not true of a splice condition. At a true splice condition, you need both sets of bars in the splice to provide phiMn>Mu.
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
BA
RE: Seemingly Academic Question
Let's say that the wall stacks two panels high. There is distributed reinforcing in both panels that provides adequate moment capacity all on its own for both panels.
I believe, and someone tell me if I'm off the mark here, that if you provide localized chord reinforcement for shear friction (to get the shear into the pile caps) and uplift (just as a hold down mechanism), that the localized chord reinforcing need only extend up the height of one panel, not both panels.