Rebar lap splice transverse reinforcement additional to shear links 9

[Samuee]

Hi buddy
We know transverse reinforcement is required to be provided at the lap zone of rc beam, I would like to know your practice if shear links are already provided for the beam, the area of transverse reinforcement in additional to the shear links area or not

Thanks

 

[r13]

I just checked ACI, for splice for compression, it is allowed to reduce the splice length for bars enclosed in spirals, and ties with spacing not greater than 4". Also, the reduction is allowed for the excess reinforcement too.

 

[Agent666]

ACI does not allow it for tension splice,

I'm sorry but [again] this is incorrect. Read the ACI development clause again, the 12-1 development equation considers this effect. Honestly, I don't know how to say it again and again and get through?

So let's approach it from your side, you prove why you're saying ACI318 does not consider this when the K_tr factor [as I've noted twice previously now] considers A_tr [the transverse steel total area and spacing and number of bars crossing a split all form part of eqn 12-2],

In ACI318-08 clause 12.2.1 states you can use eqn 12-1 for L_d which then uses eqn 12-2 for calculating K_tr.

So why are you stating ACI318 does not consider this effect? I'm at a loss to understand your logic, it's in black and white in ACI318.

Just because you say it repeatedly does not make your view any more correct.

 

[rowingengineer]

ACI318 commentary definition - Ktr is a factor that represents the contribution of confining reinforcement across potential splitting planes.

in 12.2.2 the (cd+krt)/db is assumed to be 1.5 hence why 12.2.2 doesn't mention Ktr or Atr.

if the world was according to me, I would push all engineers to understand the reason behind codes, not just apply.

 

[Lomarandil]

Here's another vote for it contributing in ACI through the development length facto Ktr.

R13, there is an ongoing issue with your tendency to express incomplete or incorrect statements as definitive fact. There's nothing wrong with expressing when your understanding of a subject is limited, or waiting for another member who will be able to better address the question. None of us have all the answers -- but we all share the ethical responsibility to represent our abilities and limitations truthfully. Even on internet forums.

----
just call me Lo.

 

[r13]

Very glad to have participated in this discussion, and finally reached the root of my knowledge lapse after a big circle. This is not an excuse, but since the change in code for calculating development length (in the 90s?), I've conveniently and conservatively taken K[sub]TR[/sub] = 0, thus the reason for it has been neglected until now.

R13, there is an ongoing issue with your tendency to express incomplete or incorrect statements as definitive fact.

Please take issue with me whenever you see the incomplete or incorrect statements been pushed by me as the definite fact. I have been carefully phrasing my responses/comments/opinions, in order not to be construed as "authoritative/definitive", but I guess I've not worked hard enough though.

 

[KootK]

I have been carefully phrasing my responses/comments/opinions, in order not to be construed as "authoritative/definitive", but I guess I've not worked hard enough though.

#MeToo. Even when I'm right about stuff, choosing language that in any way implies that my statements are "facts" tends to get people's hackles up in a hurry. As a result, you'll see a lot of this kind of thing in my writing here:

In my opinion... (I don't bother with the "humble" part as nobody would fall for that)

In my experience...

I believe...

It is my belief that...

It gets so repetitive that I can barely stand it. But it is effective.

 

[r13]

KootK,

Thanks for the understanding and suggestions. For this case, I forgot to add the words "I think.." in my statement, which is often seen in my responses.

My reminder to all critics, while I appreciate your efforts to correct my mistake, please do not assume everybody is so smart as you to figure out your hint(s), go to the point directly, as Agent666 did in his response posted on 11 Jan 21 05:31, but with his hint started from response posted on 10 Jan 21 18:44, after 18 exchanges in between. I did have missed his "hint" made on 10 Jan 21 20:25 though. Damn stupid is the only word I can put on myself for the miss.

 

[r13]

but we all share the ethical responsibility to represent our abilities and limitations truthfully. Even on internet forums.

I agree completely. To my standard - unethical behavior is 1) to mislead less experienced intentionally, and 2) seeing a mistake, but not to put up efforts to correct the mistake forcefully in a direct manner. A vague answer, or challenge, could lead to more unnecessary mistakes, and degrade the thread. Name calling is not the best strategy to correct a wrong, as it is insulting in nature.

 

[KootK]

As one who tends to draw a little ire, the following suggestions have also been made to me, by moderators, in the past (not here at Eng-Tips, yet):

1) Try to avoid contributing more that four comments to any one thread and;

2) Avoid directly addressing anyone other than the originating poster unless responding to a question directly asked of me.

I do not follow these recommendations rigorously because doing so would utterly neuter me for some of the deep dives that I like to go on. That said, when I do drift past these limits, I will pause to ask myself if I'm still contributing something meaningful to the discussion. As in all things... judgment and moderation tend to smooth the path.

 

[r13]

KootK,

Obviously I've violate your "4 comments" rule, ad advise received from moderator of this forum - try to avoid direct conflict with other members buy walk away. But, due to personality, I hate to walk away from vague comments, and not to acknowledge my mistake once the fact/truth is coming out. I shall refine my temper through learning from the hard lessons. Thanks again.

 

[Lomarandil]

Thanks R13 and KootK... I appreciate and agree with your perspectives in these last several posts.

----
just call me Lo.

 

[r13]

Lo,

Appreciate your understanding. Thanks.