cracks in CMU walls - technical publications
cracks in CMU walls - technical publications
(OP)
I am searching for any technical publication, magazine article, basically any published and reputable source of guidelines to the evaluation of cracks in existing reinforced CMU walls. I have looked long and hard and yet to find what I need (NCMA TEK notes, google, my forensic books, etc etc.)
I have strong opinions on the subject, but I basically need some backup as this is a legal issue and laypeople like it when you cite magazines and tech bulletins.
I need to be able to hammer down with a document that essentially says hairline cracks in reinforced CMU do not normally represent a reduction in the strength of the walls to resist lateral wind loads. Generally speaking of 2 story houses, but this case it is a one story house, so very lightly loaded except for wind.
Thanks in advance.
I have strong opinions on the subject, but I basically need some backup as this is a legal issue and laypeople like it when you cite magazines and tech bulletins.
I need to be able to hammer down with a document that essentially says hairline cracks in reinforced CMU do not normally represent a reduction in the strength of the walls to resist lateral wind loads. Generally speaking of 2 story houses, but this case it is a one story house, so very lightly loaded except for wind.
Thanks in advance.






RE: cracks in CMU walls - technical publications
So in the least you need urgently to reword your intent to a less haughty proposal: that in spite of being cracked, walls may (but might not) comply with the STANDING requirement for lateral strength that the original structural system (or at least a viable variation of it from a structural and code viewpoint) requires from them for safety, strength and stability, then concentrating in proving that this is the case of the walls you are considering in the case.
That is, if you want to work with truth, and not tall words used for deception.
RE: cracks in CMU walls - technical publications
http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200313573.pdf
I understand that it is less cozier standing trying to prove something than axiomatically stating that you have the truth. But in the evidence of the cracked state that is the factual position.