Calculation principle for the maximum spacing of reinforcement columns in rectangular containers
Thread Content
In NBT47003.1, on page 68, there is a formula for calculating the maximum spacing. The stress calculation coefficient a is determined from B/A using Figure 8–7. In this case, should A be taken as the total length L of the container, or as the assumed spacing Lp between the reinforcement columns? According to the standard definition, Type C containers are measured based on their total length on page 150, while Type E containers are measured based on Lp on page 160. Moreover, the values obtained using Lp are generally lower; as a result, there will be numerous reinforcement columns on such equipment. Is this reasonable? What is the principle behind calculating the maximum distance?
Uh, not a single reply – have they not considered this issue at all?
This post was last edited by zhangjuhua on 2015-10-8 21:25. Your question is quite difficult; not many people come across it, and they probably haven’t thought that much about it:lol
Many people encounter this problem, but since the standards specify it in this way, what can be done? There are many aspects in these standards whose values seem questionable. If one doesn’t agree with this calculation model and method, who would go to the trouble of examining it carefully? Just like when the standards require the calculation of the cross-sectional coefficient needed for reinforced columns, using the formula actually yields results that seem problematic, and the examples given in the explanations don’t even show how to calculate such a coefficient
The maximum spacing is a critical value for the minimum fixed stress; in other words, it’s also possible to use additional fixed columns to ensure safety
There is no unified or reasonable method for providing examples of standard definition force. Two issues in the calculation of E-type rectangular containers: 1. The maximum spacing of vertical reinforcement members depends on the choice of the B value – whether to use the total height H or the height hi of each section. Using the total height H is the most conservative approach, but it results in an excessively low Lpmax. Moreover, the vertical reinforcement elements are numerous and large, making the E-type less effective than using the C-type directly; this is clearly unreasonable. If the hi value of each section is taken, Lpmax becomes too large, resulting in a lack of conservatism. According to the definition, it should be a value somewhere in between the two. The choice of B still has to be based on experience. 2. If there are tie rods on the top reinforcement, take the smaller value if there are tie rods; otherwise, take the total length.
The spacing of the reinforcement columns is intended to ensure the strength of the wall panels