Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Col Stirrups

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Of course.  A dinosaur like me should have realized that  :^)

 

Thor

 

From: Fred Turner [mailto:turner(--nospam--at)stateseismic.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:39 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Col Stirrups

 

Thor – It may depend on when the building was constructed. If it was built well before the mid-1970’s before the seismic hook requirement came into effect in ACT 318, that would offer a plausible explanation. Fred

 

 From: "Thor Tandy" <vicpeng(--nospam--at)telus.net>

To: "SEAInt" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>

Subject: Col Stirrups

 

I recently saw a photo of a failed column from the Chile EQ.

 

 

 

In our concrete standard, CSA A23.4, "the bend for stirrups shall be min 135 unless concrete is restrained from spalling .".  I.e. bent into the column body.

 

 

 

Does the IBC/UBC have a similar requirement?

 

 

 

The photo showed a square column with column stirrups that only overlapped with a 90 hook . so unless they (Chile codes) have a waiver that allows 90 then it appears to have been constructed wrong built wrong . ?

 

 

 

Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, C.Eng, Struct.Eng, MIStructE Victoria, BC Canada

 

 

 

Fred Turner, Staff Structural Engineer, Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission, a public policy advisory agency of State Government, 1755 Creekside Oaks Drive #100 Sacramento, CA 95833, Turner(--nospam--at)StateSeismic.com Land Line 916-263-5506 Ext 227  Fax 916-263-0594