kjm93
Structural
- Nov 22, 2019
- 23
I'm digging into ACI 318-19 updated shear provisions for the first time by designing a standard 4-pile pile cap. I've found that by using 318-19 I get a pile cap that has nearly 5x(!!) the amount of concrete as a 318-14 beam design method gives me, because I'm down to about 0.5root(f'c) due to the size factor and low flexural reinforcement ratio. So my solution to limit the amount of concrete is to use either a STM approach or introduce vertical shear reinforcement. By doing STM I basically get the same design as I got using ACI 318-14 beam design method - does this seems a bit unconservative now considering all of the 318-19 shear provision updates?
Another question I have regarding pile caps and the new shear provisions is if anyone else thinks the new size factor contradicts the CRSI Pile Cap Design Guide shear strength factor [3.5 - 2.5(Mu/Vu*d)] which increases the shear strength at the column face for deeper members. Should this CRSI factor still be used when checking one-way shear at the column face?
Another question I have regarding pile caps and the new shear provisions is if anyone else thinks the new size factor contradicts the CRSI Pile Cap Design Guide shear strength factor [3.5 - 2.5(Mu/Vu*d)] which increases the shear strength at the column face for deeper members. Should this CRSI factor still be used when checking one-way shear at the column face?