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

Re: Min. Reinforcement in Pedestals

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
    We have learnt a lot on this topic by these posts.  Shouldn't there be a code
provision for us ordinary mortals to distinguish between columns and padestals?  For
myself, when I find  Pu  <  0.1(Area)fc', I do not regard it as a compression member
and suspend the code provisions (if I can get away with it).  #6@12 on all faces is
surely adequate.
Otherwise, the checker sometime wants you to not only use 0.5% reinforcement (I am
in zone 2) but also rings with 135 bends at alternate bars and in some
pads(columns?) such as the one under discussion,it is surely an overkill.

S A Masroor
Consulting Structural Engineer
Karachi, Pakistan.

> From: "Dan Goodrich" <dang(--nospam--at)>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)>
> Subject: Re: Min. Reinforcement in Pedestals
> One other item to think about.  Is the pedestal going to have any
> significant
> dynamic loads from vibratory equipment?  This could cause significant
> problems if the pedestal is not large enough.
> Dan Goodrich, P.E.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at:
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********