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]
Yeah, but where is the fun in that! ;-)  Why be a "comformest" when one
can "rabble rouse"?!? <grin.

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Daryl Richardson wrote:

> 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

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