Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day (with apologies to Bill O'Reilly)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill,

I should add that it would be logical that you would have to meet the
.75*pb in all directions that the wind or seismic event could cause
bending in the foundation (which is all directions, I would assume).  And
since different bars around the perimeter of the circular pier are
"effective" for bending for the different loading directions, you might
still end up with "heavier" than thought reinforcing.  In otherwords, you
might still need/want 8 bars, but may not be at the level of needing those
8 bars to be #9 bars.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Scott Maxwell wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Your following message has been delivered to the list
>   seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org at 09:22:58 on 11 Jan 2006.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Bill,
>
> I don't think that the code provisions that Sharon pointed out would
> really apply as they are intended for R/C moment frames under seismic
> loads.  While your situation is certainly gonna be under seismic loads, I
> am not sure that it should be classified as a "frame".
>
> As to the code section the plan checker is referencing, I agree that I
> doubt s/he really meant 1910.16.8.6.  S/he probably really meant 1910.9.1,
> which would land you in the same spot (i.e. minimum steel of 1%).
>
> Your best arguement comes from section 1910.3.3.  It basically states that
> for flexural members, if the design axial load strength (phi*Pu) is
> smaller than 0.10*f'c*Ag or phi*Pb, then the ratio of reinforcement shall
> not exceed 0.75 of the ratio phob (balanced reinforcment ratio) that would
> produce balanced strain conditions for the sections under flexure without
> the axial load.  I think that is what you might be looking for...
>
> HTH,
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Sharon wrote:
>
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> > I have notes from a class where Mr. Gosh (concrete guru) stated as a
> > rule of thumb:
> >
> >
> >
> > For Pu (Gravity only)
> >
> > If Pu <= 01AGf'c then design as beam, 1921.3
> >
> > If Pu > 01AGf'c then design as column, 1921.4
> >
> >
> >
> > Good Luck
> >
> >
> >
> > Loving California,
> >
> >
> >
> > Sharon Robertson, P.E.
> >
> > Arcon Engineers
> >
> > sharon(--nospam--at)arconengineers.com
> >
> > Tel: 858-503-7854
> >
> > Fax: 858-503-7858
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Bill Allen [mailto:T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:39 AM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day (with apologies to Bill
> > O'Reilly)
> >
> >
> >
> > Now I know I have finally made it to the Big Time (tm). I have recently
> > been retained to design a light standard foundation. The light standard
> > is 5" square and 25 feet tall with a light fixture at the top. The
> > footing projects 2'-6" above grade and is 2'-0" in diameter. The
> > installation is in Southern California (BTW, it's going to get to 70o F
> > today) which means I have designed this "structure" to the 1997 UBC /
> > 2001 CBC.
> >
> >
> >
> > The "project" was plan checked by an outside consultant who shall remain
> > unnamed. The plan checker is an SE and his number is only about 400
> > higher than mine. At a passing rate of 100/year, that means he probably
> > passed in 1987-1988 or so. So, it's not like he's a neophyte.
> >
> >
> >
> > I've got a plan check list consisting of six items, four of which are
> > structural.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll limit my post to The Ridiculous Item of the Day. Since the top of
> > the footing projects 2'-6" above grade, he is requesting that the
> > footing be designed as a concrete column with a minimum reinforcing of
> > 1%. He is citing CBC section 1910.16.8.6 but I believe he really means
> > 19.10.1 since the footing is not a composite section. For a 2'-6"
> > diameter section, this means I need to provide (don't laugh) 9-#8 bars!
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, I can find a few references to reinforce (sorry for the pun) my
> > argument that this section is not a column (Pu<0.10f'cAg, d/L>3, tension
> > controlled section, etc.), but I seem to recall a section of the code
> > where it was very clear that, if Pu<0.10f'cAg, then the section can be
> > considered a beam and not a column. Unfortunately, I can no longer find
> > that specific section in the code.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is this still applicable? Am I dreaming that there is an exception in
> > the code?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
> >
> > ALLEN DESIGNS <http://www.AllenDesigns.com>
> >
> > Consulting Structural Engineers
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********