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

Try CBC section 1910.3.3  (Pu < 0.1 fc' Ag)  and section 1910.5.3  ( beam
reinforcement is 1.33 times required steel if required steel is less than 200
bw d/fy).

Gautam

>>> Sharon 01/11/06 12:37PM >>>
Scott,

FYI  I wasn't saying that those code sections would apply.  I was
responding to the following from the original post:

"...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?"
 
Sharon Robertson, P.E.
Arcon Engineers
sharon(--nospam--at)arconengineers.com
Tel: 858-503-7854
Fax: 858-503-7858
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen [mailto:T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:16 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day (with apologies to Bill
O'Reilly)

Thanks, Scott.

Unfortunately your argument won't help me.

First of all, he won't buy the fact that this element is a beam, not a
column. He says it's sticking out of the ground 2'-6" and "looks like a
column, so it must be a column". He said if the element terminated flush
with the ground or paving, he wouldn't have this requirement. Needless
to
say, I wasn't impressed with his logic.

Secondly, 0.75Rho-b won't help. To make things simpler (for this simple
mind, anyway), if the section was 21" square instead of 24" round
(equivalent area), then 0.75Rho-b is 1.3%.

My next tactic: I'm going over his head. I'll report back with my
results.

Regards,

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:23 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day (with apologies to Bill
O'Reilly)

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


 



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********