FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42  
43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   >>   >|  
is wrong in any or all of the foregoing points, it should be easy to disprove his assertions. It would be better to do this than to ridicule or ignore them, and it would even be better than to issue reports, signed by authorities, which commend the practices herein condemned. FOOTNOTES: [Footnote A: Presented at the meeting of March 16th, 1910.] [Footnote B: "Stresses in Reinforced Concrete Beams," _Journal_, Am. Soc. Mech. Engrs., Mid-October, 1909.] [Footnote C: Page 14, column 8.] [Footnote D: _Engineering News_, December 3d, 1908.] DISCUSSION JOSEPH WRIGHT, M. AM. SOC. C. E. (by letter).--If, as is expected, Mr. Godfrey's paper serves to attract attention to the glaring inconsistencies commonly practiced in reinforced concrete designs, and particularly to the careless detailing of such structures, he will have accomplished a valuable purpose, and will deserve the gratitude of the Profession. No engineer would expect a steel bridge to stand up if the detailing were left to the judgment or convenience of the mechanics of the shop, yet in many reinforced concrete designs but little more thought is given to the connections and continuity of the steel than if it were an unimportant element of the structure. Such examples, as illustrated by the retaining wall in Fig. 2, are common, the reinforcing bars of the counterfort being simply hooked by a 4-in. U-bend around those of the floor and wall slabs, and penetrating the latter only from 8 to 12 in. The writer can cite an example which is still worse--that of a T-wall, 16 ft. high, in which the vertical reinforcement of the wall slab consisted of 3/4-in. bars, spaced 6 in. apart. The wall slab was 8 in. thick at the top and only 10 in. at the bottom, yet the 3/4-in. vertical bars penetrated the floor slab only 8 in., and were simply hooked around its lower horizontal bars by 4-in. U-bends. Amazing as it may appear, this structure was designed by an engineer who is well versed in the theories of reinforced concrete design. These are only two examples from a long list which might be cited to illustrate the carelessness often exhibited by engineers in detailing reinforced concrete structures. In reinforced concrete work the detailer has often felt the need of some simple and efficient means of attaching one bar to another, but, in its absence, it is inexcusable that he should resort to such makeshifts as are commonly used. A simple U-hook on the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42  
43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
concrete
 

reinforced

 

Footnote

 
detailing
 

designs

 

examples

 
structures
 

engineer

 

simply

 
structure

simple

 

hooked

 

commonly

 
vertical
 
writer
 

penetrating

 

counterfort

 

common

 
reinforcing
 

illustrated


retaining

 

bottom

 

detailer

 

illustrate

 

carelessness

 

exhibited

 

engineers

 

efficient

 

makeshifts

 

resort


inexcusable

 

absence

 
attaching
 

penetrated

 

horizontal

 
reinforcement
 

consisted

 

spaced

 

Amazing

 

design


theories

 

versed

 
designed
 

Concrete

 

Reinforced

 
Journal
 

Stresses

 
meeting
 
column
 
Engineering