×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Errors while designing a column (aci SP17)

Errors while designing a column (aci SP17)

Errors while designing a column (aci SP17)

(OP)
Hello all,
I have a question, I want to solve this problem using the same procedure as SP17 but once I'm done and want to verify my answer and find the column axial load capacity it comes out as inadequate. I'm aware if i dont multiply by 0.65 and 0.8 and rather use phi = 0.7 it comes at at the borderline. but how did aci solve it like that in their design aid? am i missing something?
so is it correct like that at 4% reinf? please help

my problem:





used interaction diagrams:



RE: Errors while designing a column (aci SP17)

I think you are generally working through the procedure required, however some of your values are slightly out for using that interaction diagram. i.e. your gamma = 0.75 while the interaction diagram is 0.7 or 0.8 (though this will only make a difference once you need to consider moment as you'll see they all have the same intersection point on the y axis).

Similarly the 60 ksi bar strength is only 413.7MPa, not 420MPa. The interaction diagram way of working out strength is quite crude by its very nature, the errors in estimating a reinforcement ratio and slight differences in setout of reinforcement, etc, all have a corresponding effect on the calculated capacity when compared to a first principles analysis of the cross section accounting for the location of each bar and the actual strength of each bar. For example based on your K_n value of 1.4 the reinforcement ratio is actually more like 0.039 or so, little under or over estimates will mean you'll potentially never match exactly.

I think if you divided the axial load by phi = 0.7, then you should be using the same phi for working out the axial strength (i.e. not the 0.65 x 0.8). Otherwise you're comparing a reinforcing content worked out using 0.7 to a capacity applying alternative 0.52 factor which makes no sense. This is why using 0.7 gets you pretty close.

I find generic interaction diagrams are only useful for preliminary estimates of strength, ballpark calculations to establish initial member sizes if you like.

They are simply too inaccurate for real design or are basically useless for biaxial loading scenarios in my view.

You can however write a spreadsheet to work out the capacity based on a given reinforcement arrangement and column orientation, or resort to commercial software, you can even use this to generate your own interaction diagrams for say 420MPa vs the 413MPa. It's a useful exercise to familiarise yourself with the process of determining the section capacity.

RE: Errors while designing a column (aci SP17)

I'd point out if you use reinf ratio of 0.039 and phi = 0.7 you end up with a capacity of 5495kN, so pretty damn close to the starting load of 5488kN!

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources

White Paper - The New World of Thermoplastic Manufacturing
Digital-direct thermoplastic manufacturing offers exceptional quality, opens the door to novel design parameters not possible with injection molding while also bypassing the long lead time and up-front investment in injection molding tooling, offering a better total value proposition. Download Now
White Paper - Strategies to Secure Connected Cars with Firewalls
White-hat hackers have demonstrated gaining remote access to dashboard functions and transmissions of connected vehicles. That makes a firewall a vital component of a multilayered approach to vehicle security as well as overall vehicle safety and reliability. Learn strategies to secure with firewalls. Download Now
White Paper - Model Based Engineering for Wire Harness Manufacturing
As complexity rises, current harness manufacturing methods are struggling to keep pace due to manual data exchanges and the inability to capture tribal knowledge. A model-based wire harness manufacturing engineering flow automates data exchange and captures tribal knowledge through design rules to help harness manufacturers improve harness quality and boost efficiency. Download Now
White Paper - What is Generative Design and Why Do You Need It?
Engineers are being asked to produce more sophisticated designs under a perfect storm of complexity, cost, and change management pressures. Generative design empowers automotive design teams to navigate this storm by employing automation, data re-use and synchronization, and framing design in the context of a full vehicle platform. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close