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]



I had a similar situation a while back with a cmu "column" that wasn't taking any axial load. It was really a vertical beam. I went ahead and reinforced it for minimum column requirements just to avoid the stupid comment from the department, I knew it was coming.
 
 
Will H.

From:  Daryl Richardson <h.d.richardson(--nospam--at)shaw.ca>
Reply-To:  <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
To:  seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject:  Re: The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day (with apologies to Bill O'Reilly)
Date:  Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:35:48 -0700
>Bill,
>
>        Considering it's just one light standard (as I understand
>your original post) isn't the cheapest solution to just put the bars
>into the foundation and be done with it??
>
>Regards,
>
>H. Daryl Richardson
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Allen" <T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net>
>To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:15 PM
>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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ******
>****** ********


Find just what you're after with the new, more precise MSN Search - try it now! ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********