Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: More On Ungrouted Baseplates for Traffic Signal/SignageStruc ture s

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
However, the method DOES work, since they give you options for bolts all in
compression, or with tension one side compression the other. As long as your
loading is consistent, the results should be, too.

As Roger stated, often the construction/erection condition governs anyway.

FWIW, according to Equation 6.10.2 in PCI 3rd Ed., we would need a 5.1" base

When we cranked this thickness back into our FE Model, we found that it
exactly works. So the equation, while it may be empirically derived, seems
consistent with our more rigorous analysis.

Now, I am not for one minute going to prescribe a 5" base plate (although I
suppose I could). So, as I said before, the guy's getting grout, or nothing
at all! Because, as you state, this seems to be the preferred method by

-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Robert [mailto:Robert.Rogers(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 8:55 AM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
Subject: RE: More On Ungrouted Baseplates for Traffic
Signal/SignageStruc ture s

...implies to me that the author's intent is not to have an "ungrouted"
baseplate under service load conditions.  When you start talking signs &
cantiliver support structures I would expect the service loads to be much
greater than the temporary/construction loads; this is much different than a
precast column going into a normal building structure.  Even at that, it
would appear that PCI still wants grout under the column.  Have any thoughts
on my observations ?