RE: ASD vs. LRFD[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: ASD vs. LRFD
- From: Paul Meyer <PMeyer(--nospam--at)HASimons.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:54:41 -0700
True, it's based on the "effective area" which is at the surface of the "pull out cone."
The Canadian Code recognizes that it is really a cone but models it as a pyramid to simplify things....this results in a square effective area, rather than a circle. Although the area of a single circle is easy to calculate, it gets more complex when the "effective areas" overlap. Since there is a constant relationship between the area of a circle and a circumscribed square, this can be (and is) accounted for in the calibration factor used in the Code.
The end result is the same, since the "effective area" is directly proportional to the surface area of the "pull out cone."
From: Chris Palmateer [mailto:chrisp(--nospam--at)vlmk.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 10:22
Subject: RE: ASD vs. LRFD
Has anyone taken a look at Section 1923 yet. The "pull out cone" no longer
applies. Now the calc is based on the "effective area". This area is
defined as the projection of the cone onto the surface. "For an anchor
which is perpendicular to the surface from which it protrudes , the
effective area is a circle."
Time to revise the "standards" I guess.
- Prev by Subject: Re: ASD vs. LRFD
- Next by Subject: RE: ASD vs. LRFD
- Previous by thread: Re: ASD vs. LRFD
- Next by thread: RE: ASD vs. LRFD