×
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!

*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

max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

(OP)
Greetings,

AS per this thread link
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=397909...
Majority of engineers refer to ACI 318, 11.4.5 and state that transverse stirrup spacing shall be as prescribed in 11.4.5.1.


In my opinion, ACI speaks about spacing of stirrups perpendicular to longitudinal axis of member which is vertical axis and it specify vertical stirrups spacing(S) not any horizontal spacing of stirrup.

Lateral spacing is of no concern since we calculate "Av" which itself depends on width of beam"bw" More wider beam will need more Av.

Would any engineer shed some light over it?Is my understanding Correct?


RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

The longitudinal axis of a beam is normally horizontal, not vertical. The d/2 requirement is to ensure that shear reinforcement crosses any potential diagonal tension crack.

The link you gave above does not seem to exist. Does it relate to the number of vertical legs required at a given beam cross section? Wide beams do require more vertical legs.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Quote:

In my opinion, ACI speaks about spacing of stirrups perpendicular to longitudinal axis of member which is vertical axis and it specify vertical stirrups spacing(S) not any horizontal spacing of stirrup.

ACI is speaking about the spacing of “vertical stirrups”. It is not speaking of the “vertical spacing” of stirrups.

Quote:

Lateral spacing is of no concern since we calculate "Av" which itself depends on width of beam"bw" More wider beam will need more Av.

Lateral (or horizontal) spacing is the concern here. For beams, the code provides for three conditions:

Vu > phiVc
Calculate and provide Av based on the magnitude of Vu but no less than the minimums (d/2 etc)

phiVc/2 < Vu < phiVc
Provide the minimum Av required

Vu < phiVc/2
No stirrups are required
(I usually still provide min stirrups in this condition anyway, or something near to minimum.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Spacing is the distance between two stirrups, measured along the axial axial axis of the element.

- The spacing of two vertical stirrups in a beam, is the "horizontal" distance in between.
- The spacing of two horizontal stirrups in a column, is the "vertical" distance in between.
- The spacing of two stirrups in a sloped girder, is the distance in between the two, measured "laterally" along the axial axis.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Stirrups are placed in beams.
Ties are placed in columns, not stirrups.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Exchangeable terminology - same type/shape (enclosed hoop), and same function (shear/torsion). I prefer to call J-hooks (one end 180°, the other 90°), and straight hooks with 135° legs at ends as ties.

As in my example, how you call the enclosed hoop shear reinforcement in a girder tilted 45°? Or you might argue the girder essentially a column?

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Not exchangeable per ACI.
Different purposes.
Stirrups - takes shear forces in beams.
Ties - Takes shear forces and primarily confines compression reinforcement.

Beam stirrups can be open.
Column ties have critical detailing requirements pertaining to closure, cross ties, and spacing that is totally different than in beams.

For 45 degree "beams" the issue is whether the member has significant axial compression to warrant the use of ties, which have different spacing requirements than stirrups as well.



RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Argument accepted, except the stirrups in beams are meant to confine the longitudinal bars in compression too, just not so pronounced as in columns. The U stirrups require hooked ends, and most often require the ties mentioned above.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

This particular clause is talking about the spacing of vertical stirrup legs across the cross sections width. I don't know if that was 100% clear in reading others comments to be honest.

The reason for this requirement is to ensure a relatively well distributed reinforcement shear capacity across the width of a member. If you say have a single leg at the perimeter of a wide beam and no legs in the middle then the tension via strut and tie across the base of the beam can exceed the tension in the vertical legs leading primarily to the possibility of longitudinal cracks along the axis of the beam. This clause is meant to alleviate this concern by ensuring the legs are never more than a certain distance apart across the width so the horizontal parts of the stirrups are not working too hard.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Agent666, I don't think that is what Clause 11.4.5.1 is about. The d/2 is not typical for the vertical leg spacing across the cross section. Your points are well taken, and I am sure there is an ACI provision which addresses the issue, but don't think it is that one.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

We have a similar provision in NZS3101 (which is predominantly based on ACI318), and that exactly what that clause is intended for. It uses similar wording but with more stringent spacing requirements. I'll post tomorrow for comparison (and actually review ACI318) to show the wording and people can make up their own mind up.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Thanks. Will be waiting on your post. I am at a disadvantage, as I don't have access to the ACI code at the moment, but to me that clause looks like what we have always used for spacing of stirrups, not the number of stirrup legs required at a given section.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

ACI terminology definition - shear reinforcement

stirrup — bar or wire reinforcement oriented normal to or at an acute angle to the longitudinal reinforcement in a flexural member and extending as close as practical to the extreme tension and compression fibers of the cross section. (See also transverse reinforcement and tie.)

tie — (1) loop of reinforcing bars encircling the longitudinal steel in columns; (2) a tensile unit adapted to holding concrete forms secure against the lateral pressure of unhardened concrete; (3) a tension member in a strutand-tie model.

transverse reinforcement — reinforcement at right angles to the longitudinal reinforcement.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

The NZ code has two sub-clauses with clear wording that one applies to longitudinal spacing and the other to transverse. In ACI 318-14, the corresponding clause to the one shown in the first post in this topic is clause 9.7.6.2.2. The commentary to clause 22.5.10.5 mentions transverse spacing (no values given though), which suggests to me that 9.7.6.2.2 isn't intended to apply to transverse spacing. I have one US textbook (Wight) which refers to the FIB model code for transverse spacing rather than to the ACI code.

Clause 9.7.6.2.3 applies to inclined stirrups and it appears clear that longitudinal spacing is the intent of that clause, so it would follow that 9.7.6.2.2 is also intended to apply to longitudinal spacing.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Yes, I'd agree that in ACI 318-14, section 9.7.6.2.3 applies to spacing along the axis of the beam - not transverse spacing.
You have multiple occasions when a 45 degree line (crack) can occur down the length of the member and so you need multiple stirrups crossing multiple 45-degree cracks. Again - nothing about transverse spacing of multiple stirrup legs.

Your reference to 22.5.10.5 does speak directly to this and suggests that an engineer should consider multiple (i.e. more than 2) legs across a wider beam - but for whatever reason, 318 doesn't limit leg spacing transverse. The links I posted above have a few comments (mine included) that suggest using some sort of guide. In my case I used my mentors recommendations. In NZ it appears the code demands it.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

My understanding is that is the maximum longitudinal spacing of beam stirrups in ACI. I have never found a transverse spacing limit in ACI.

Different codes use the minimum of 450 to 600 and .75 to 1 times D as the transverse spacing limit.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

ACI does not have rigid limit on transverse spacing of transverse shear reinforcement in cross section, but I recall that in seismic detailing, it requires intermediate cross ties in addition to stirrups. I don't know if it is still required on these days.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Here you go, the requirements from NZS3101, 'at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the beam' is the same essentially as 'perpendicular to the member axis' which was my actual train of thought. This is clearly differentiated from item (a) which is the stirrup spacing along the member.



In ACI318 there are spacing requirements across the section, take a look at CL 9.7.6.2.2 in ACI318-19 (cut and paste below). Maybe this was only a recent addition in 2019 version, following 15 years after we first adopted it. OP didn't say what version of ACI they are looking at though....



Here in NZ stirrups are called stirrups for the most part, whether they are in columns or beams really has no practical difference, it's just a term most people feel comfortable with describing essentially the same thing. In our design standards however beam 'stirrups' are referred to as 'stirrups' and column 'stirrups' are referred to as 'stirrup-ties' sometimes. You are trying to make a contractor learn too many words in my opinion ponder....... KISS.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

FYI, looking through ACI318-14, the above across width spacing isn't present. Therefore added in 2019 version.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

This is a new table to me, never saw it before.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Thanks for that, Agent666. Can I say that we are all on the same page now? The clause 11.4.5.1 which the OP referenced, whichever version that comes from, is for spacing along the axis of the member. And now ACI has added a provision for spacing across the width.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Yes a very new provision in 19 - ACI catching up with NZ!

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

JAE,

Good to see ACI is catching up. Been in Eurocodes since their inception, AS codes since 1988 and in BS codes well before that. Obviously one of the areas NZ code decided to overlook ACI when they developed their own code in 2006.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Perhaps it is just because the US has not commonly followed the practice, widespread in Australia, of using wide, flat beams.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

Neither have the British or Europeans, except possibly some in Spain using PT band beams.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

hokie66
If you read one of my replies in one of the linked threads I posted above I mentioned that my mentors from Texas, working back as far as the 1920’s would always provide additional vertical legs for beams wider than 30” or so. So I believe a lot of US engineers did that as common knowledge in detailing despite it not being directly required in the code.

RE: max. spacing between stirrup links in the beams

JAE,
Yes, I agree, and that is my memory as well from the time I practiced in the US. But I was talking about the use of band beams, usually 1200, 1800, or 2400 wide, and 300 to 900 deep. We never did that in Virginia when I was there.

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

The Low-Code Digital Transformation Guide
Change the way you develop apps and, in turn, change the way your business operates and engages with customers, leading to new channels of revenue. This ebook is the culmination of 14 years of experience with 4,000 customers that have all transformed their business through low-code development. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close