Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Valuable Lesson - was: The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day (with apologies to Bill O'Reilly)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Daryl,

Now to determine how much fun we are talking about, how do you proposed to
create a more "realistic" concrete strain curve?  Are we talking a
bilinear model, Hognestad's Parabola with a linear tail, or something more
sophisticated than one of those (like Sorgin's Model)?  And how about more
"sophsiticated" models for steel stress-strain relationships?  Any
preferences there?

You shouldn't tease me with all that fun stuff!!!

<grin>  ;-)

Scott
Adrian, MI

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Daryl Richardson wrote:

> Scott,
>
>         Yeah, right!!
>
>         And look at all the fun Carlo can have with strain compatibility
> calculations if he follows Bill's suggestion and calculates a column
> interaction diagram for a round column with an odd number of bars from first
> principals. And maybe, while he's at it, he should use an actual stress -
> strain curve for the concrete AND consider sub yield stress in the steel
> rather than use a simplified Whitney stress block!!
>
>         You know,  many decades ago, when I was still an E.I.T., I had as a
> mentor an engineer named Jim Warne (now passed away, but who has posted on
> this list in the past).  Jim gave me some very valuable advice which he
> summed up in the following sentence.
>
>         "Daryl," he said, "We're trying to decide how many 2x4s we need to
> build a wall.  We are not trying to produce a thesis on the effects of
> bi-axial bending combined with axial load!"
>
>         That was forty years ago.  And now, having gotten two more
> university degrees and a whole lot of experience, I can still look back and
> know that that two minute lesson was one of the most valuable lessons of my
> career.
>
>         Now go back to your rabble rousing.
>
> Best regards, Scott
>
> H. Daryl Richardson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Maxwell" <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:01 PM
> Subject: Re: The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day (with apologies to Bill
> O'Reilly)
>
>
> > 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
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********