seattlemike
Structural
- Oct 23, 2004
- 79
Hello fellow engineers,
Question 1 of 2:
Our ACI code specifies a minimum 1% steel in columns so that we don't have catastrophic failures such as in the Pakistan earthquake last year. I believe the minimum 1% is in there to provide 3 fold protection:
1) Ductility in the ends and joints, where rotation & hinges could occur.
2) 12% reserve axial strength if the concrete deteriorates at a joint.
3) Reserve moment capacity for unpredicted lateral forces.
Do you agree? Are there other reasons?
Question 2 of 2:
"Foundations" only require 0.5% steel, but if say a column continues down to a deeper foundation pad, is it correct to say that the column above grade is a "column" while the column below grade is a "foundation." Obvious, the soil does provide some confinement, and if it suddenly lost it's strength due to liquification, you'd probably have much bigger problems. And besides, you're not supposed to have hinging in your foundations anyway.
What do you think?
Question 1 of 2:
Our ACI code specifies a minimum 1% steel in columns so that we don't have catastrophic failures such as in the Pakistan earthquake last year. I believe the minimum 1% is in there to provide 3 fold protection:
1) Ductility in the ends and joints, where rotation & hinges could occur.
2) 12% reserve axial strength if the concrete deteriorates at a joint.
3) Reserve moment capacity for unpredicted lateral forces.
Do you agree? Are there other reasons?
Question 2 of 2:
"Foundations" only require 0.5% steel, but if say a column continues down to a deeper foundation pad, is it correct to say that the column above grade is a "column" while the column below grade is a "foundation." Obvious, the soil does provide some confinement, and if it suddenly lost it's strength due to liquification, you'd probably have much bigger problems. And besides, you're not supposed to have hinging in your foundations anyway.
What do you think?