Question on the latest masonry code.... 3

[WARose]

Question for anyone who has the latest & greatest masonry code.....what is the allowable bearing/compressive strength for the empirical method (which I believe is Appendix A)? Is it still 115 psi (for hollow concrete shell & type M mortar)?

Keep in mind: I'm talking about the empirical method here (which is a separate section than ASD).

EDIT: I'm talking about [red]ACI 530-13[/red] here. (Which I think is the latest.)

 

[dik]

From current Canadian Standard...Appendix F

Dik

 

[WARose]

Thanks....but that's not the code I'm looking for. I'm looking for the latest [red]ACI 530[/red].

 

[masonrygeek]

You can purchase the TMS 402/ACI 530 from The Masonry Society at

http://www.masonrysociety.org.

 

[dik]

Should have asked... don't know if this is the latest. There may be a more recent code; this is the 530-05 edition.

Dik

 

[WARose]

Thanks dik. Do you know which year this came from (i.e. the 05, 13, etc)?

 

[dik]

just edited... 05 edition, sorry I don't have a later one...

Dik

 

[WARose]

Yeah, that's the edition I have.....looking for the latest. Thanks anyway.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

I have 530-11, the tables have changed. Depending on the nominal thickness of the block (8", 10", 12" etc) the compressive strength changes. For 8" block it's unchanged from the 530-05 table posted above.

Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/

 

[jreit]

I don't have the 530-13 code, but here's the relevant page for the 530-11 code.

 

[WARose]

Thanks jreit & TME!

 

[Thoughtclaw]

For what it's worth, I have TMS 402/602-16, which I believe is in fact the latest version, and that table is exactly the same as the one jreit posted, even down to the comma in place of a period under "Type N mortar" on the second page. The only difference is that it's Table A.4.2 in this version.

 

[JLNJ]

These look like they are for axial-induced compression and probably jive with the empirical wall height limitations.

For bearing, I would hope that the allowable stresses would be a little higher, but I don't see it in the code.

 

[WARose]

[blue](JLNJ)[/blue]

For bearing, I would hope that the allowable stresses would be a little higher, but I don't see it in the code.

Me neither. For the empirical section, I've always taken those posted values as the allowable bearing as well.

 

[HuckleberryFinn]

Alright, I'll bite.

I have a decent amount (but not a ton)of experience with non-empirical masonry provisions (think regular, run of the mill load-bearing CMU). Anyway, other than the brief mention during my masonry class from a million years ago and probably glossing over these provisions everytime I flip through the Amrhein book, I don't know that I've ever seriously considered them. What are y'all designing with the empirical provisions?

Thx,

-Huck

 

[WARose]

..... I don't know that I've ever seriously considered them. What are y'all designing with the empirical provisions?

I was reviewing a drawing of a house done by the IRC. Looking at what was put on the unreinforced walls (as far as the girders go) it was pretty conservative. The 2015 IRC kicks you into the empirical section of the masonry code, so my thought was: that must be the reason. (Looking at everything else, to the builder’s credit: he followed the code fairly well. In fact, impressively so compared to many.)

But that got me thinking: I just have a older masonry code……and I know they’ve upped the bearing in the past for the ASD section…..so to be sure this design isn’t overkill, I wanted to ask as per the latest & greatest of the empirical section.