几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量  


返回   几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量 » 三维空间:产品设计或CAX软件使用 » CAD设计 » 产品功能分析
用户名
密码
注册 帮助 会员 日历 银行 搜索 今日新帖 标记论坛为已读


 
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-07, 01:55 PM   #1
huangyhg
超级版主
 
huangyhg的头像
 
注册日期: 04-03
帖子: 18592
精华: 36
现金: 249466 标准币
资产: 1080358888 标准币
huangyhg 向着好的方向发展
默认 australian reinforced masonry wall design

australian reinforced masonry wall design
i know there are a few oz folks who monitor this forum, so would value your opinion, or for that manner anyone else who knows. as3700-1988 had a clause for reinforced walls in compression which allowed the use of .70 as the capacity reduction factor provided the wall reinforcement complied. as3700-2001 seems to discount any beneficial affect of reinforcement unless the bars are restrained in each direction by ties, and therefore requires using .45 as the capacity reduction factor. anyone know if that is the intent of as3700-2001? was the interpretation of as3700-1988 wrong? if so, there are a lot of unconservative walls around.
i think that they have found that individual bars are liable to axial buckling.
the ties mean that it acts more like a concrete column and the individual buckling is restrained.
general view on this is that for 190mm walls or smaller it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to get two layers of bars and the ties between.
as for previously constructed wall, hey it is not a perfect world. try working in the us where the masonry code has changed from allowing big bars with low stress to limiting the bar to small sizes (with higher stress). what works with the old code is a violation of the new code and vice versa. we can only move on and design better from now on.
csd
there is an as/nzs code forum
look up under engineering codes, standards & certifications.
csd
the issue is not whether you could count the wall bars as compression steel. we didn't do that. but the clause in the old code recognized the benefit of the bars (if you used .0015a) by allowing the use of the reinforced masonry capacity reduction factor rather than the crd for unreinforced masonry.
yes you must use 0.45 if you don't have ties, i.e. 99% of the time.
table 4.1 really should include this.
personally i think 0.45 is a bit harsh...
i agree, harsh but true. we all know that strength will be improved with reinforcement but the current code doesn't recognise that.
__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言:前进吧,你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]
huangyhg离线中   回复时引用此帖
GDT自动化论坛(仅游客可见)
 


主题工具 搜索本主题
搜索本主题:

高级搜索
显示模式

发帖规则
不可以发表新主题
不可以回复主题
不可以上传附件
不可以编辑您的帖子

vB 代码开启
[IMG]代码开启
HTML代码关闭

相似的主题
主题 主题发起者 论坛 回复 最后发表
anchorage of masonry wall to wood diaphragm huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 12:02 PM
8 masonry back-up to 4 brick wall huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 08:58 AM
27 feet high brick 9clay0 masonry wall huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 08:33 AM
20 high basement wall and diaphragm huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 08:23 AM
【转帖】asme美国机械工程师标准目录2 huangyhg American standards 5 2009-04-26 02:38 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 12:58 PM.


于2004年创办,几何尺寸与公差论坛"致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T | GPS研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量"。免责声明:论坛严禁发布色情反动言论及有关违反国家法律法规内容!情节严重者提供其IP,并配合相关部门进行严厉查处,若內容有涉及侵权,请立即联系我们QQ:44671734。注:此论坛须管理员验证方可发帖。
沪ICP备06057009号-2
更多