Gishin1
Structural
- Jun 24, 2019
- 38
Hi All,
I know this topic has been beaten to death on here, and no conclusion has really been made to clearly define the difference between a 'wall' and a 'column'.
The most current AS3600-18 Amdt 2 has definitely made steps in the right direction, but ultimately, engineers can, and are, still designing <=50MPa 'columns' to section 11 capacities, forgoing any out-of-plane slenderness checks to Section 10, moment magnifier method or other.
I've recently come across this disturbing paper, endorsed by Engineers Australia & the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society (AEES) (well, the logos are on the paper).
This paper is essentially encouraging engineers to adopt 200x1000 blade columns, and use Section 11 to design them, as you can get better capacities with less reinforcement.
The conclusion notes that a 200x400 sized element would work just as well!
Given this paper was presented at an AEES conference, I'm surprised to find that the paper instructs the user to simply adopt non-ductile design for these blades, without any consideration of with local/global ductility demand.
I have peer reviewed numerous other projects where 'columns' such as these are being built with 50MPa and mesh reinforcement in high-rise structures, because the Section 11 capacities are so much better than Section 10. Papers like this completely undermine the peer review process/sound structural engineering/all the effort gone into the new code and commentaries, and provides 'evidence' that this approach is acceptable.
Does anyone else think this is an issue? I understand that the moment magnifier method can be overly conservative in some situations. Am I too conservative in my approach of using Section 10 Column Design to design columns. Are 200x1000 and 200x400 50MPa 'walls' acceptable?
I know this topic has been beaten to death on here, and no conclusion has really been made to clearly define the difference between a 'wall' and a 'column'.
The most current AS3600-18 Amdt 2 has definitely made steps in the right direction, but ultimately, engineers can, and are, still designing <=50MPa 'columns' to section 11 capacities, forgoing any out-of-plane slenderness checks to Section 10, moment magnifier method or other.
I've recently come across this disturbing paper, endorsed by Engineers Australia & the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society (AEES) (well, the logos are on the paper).
This paper is essentially encouraging engineers to adopt 200x1000 blade columns, and use Section 11 to design them, as you can get better capacities with less reinforcement.
The conclusion notes that a 200x400 sized element would work just as well!
Given this paper was presented at an AEES conference, I'm surprised to find that the paper instructs the user to simply adopt non-ductile design for these blades, without any consideration of with local/global ductility demand.
I have peer reviewed numerous other projects where 'columns' such as these are being built with 50MPa and mesh reinforcement in high-rise structures, because the Section 11 capacities are so much better than Section 10. Papers like this completely undermine the peer review process/sound structural engineering/all the effort gone into the new code and commentaries, and provides 'evidence' that this approach is acceptable.
Does anyone else think this is an issue? I understand that the moment magnifier method can be overly conservative in some situations. Am I too conservative in my approach of using Section 10 Column Design to design columns. Are 200x1000 and 200x400 50MPa 'walls' acceptable?
