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]
Steve,

I agree...I decided that it might be wise not to "kick" that hornet's
nest...Bill was having enough fun as it was.  FWIW, in ACI 318 there is a
section in Chapter 21 (which is basically equivalent to section 1921 in
the UBC) that give requirements for foundations (i.e. caissons/drilled
piers) that does have transverse steel requirements (essentially point
one to the frame axially loaded member transverse steel requirements like
UBC section 1809.5.2.2 does).

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, S. Gordin wrote:

> Bill,
>
> One more thing...  If your foundation is indeed a CIP pile (caisson), its design is governed by CBC 1809.5.2.2, that pushes you into 1921.4 , with the same 1% longitudinal reinforcement.  In addition, this section imposes quite severe requirements for the transverse reinforcement.
>
> Steve Gordin SE
> Irvine CA
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Bill Allen
>   To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>   Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:39 AM
>   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 T. 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
>
>   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********