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]
Scott,

No. No. I was thinking of proper load tests to determine the specific stress - strain curve for the materials to be used. That way we might even be able to take advantage of the strain hardening.

If we are going to have fun we might as well have all the fun there is to be had!!

Regards,

H. Daryl Richardson

----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Maxwell" <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: Valuable Lesson - was: The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day (with apologies to Bill O'Reilly)


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




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