×
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

cracks in CMU walls - technical publications

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.

RE: cracks in CMU walls - technical publications

I think you are in a difficult position trying to prove something contrary to what the logical mind (common sense) understands: that any cracked state is closer to ruin than the uncracked. In the process you even resource to the worse of what can be found in "scolasticism", bad logic in what everything is retorted to intent, including axiomatic and unproven statements, arguing of only "extraordinary" states where the cracked states would be closer to ruin than the uncracked states.

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

Here an example of how to model damaged masonry in a way that the cracked walls are reduced to plane stress cases with smeared properties, showing good correlation with experiment. So the proof you may require can be got from some reasonable new and reduced "smeared" properties for your walls.

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.

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