×
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!

*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

AS3600 Column detailing contradiction

AS3600 Column detailing contradiction

AS3600 Column detailing contradiction

(OP)
It seems there's a contradiction between clauses in the concrete code regarding column detailing.

Clause 10.7.4.3 (b) (iii) states, "where Lu < 5D, the spacing of the fitments shall not exceed the requirements of Section 14.5."

Clause 14.4.3 indicates, "Any column in an Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) that is part of the lateral force resisting system and where the unsupported length Lu < 5D, where D is the dimension of the column in the direction of the span, shall be detailed according to Clauses 14.5.4 and 14.5.5."

The contradiction lies in the applicability of the 14.5 detailing for columns with Lu < 5D. Clause 10.7.4.3 implies that the detailing applies universally, whereas clause 14.4.3 specifies it only for columns in a moment resisting frame that are part of the lateral system (i.e., attracting more than 20% of earthquake actions, as clarified in the commentary).

My interpretation is that clause 14.4.3 is more precise and clearly delineates when this detailing should be applied, effectively superseding the general requirement of 10.7.4.3, but I know some may disagree.

I'm interested in hearing how other engineers are handling this.
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

RE: AS3600 Column detailing contradiction

@li0ngalahad,

The commentary on Clause 10.7.4.3 addresses this as well, where it notes that the additional confinement ties are not required for columns in structures designed for a mu of 1.

RE: AS3600 Column detailing contradiction

(OP)

Quote (the_Dominator)

The commentary on Clause 10.7.4.3 addresses this as well, where it notes that the additional confinement ties are not required for columns in structures designed for a mu of 1.
I can't quite believe I haven't checked in the commentary before posting. I feel like an idiot now haha. Thanks for pointing that out.

RE: AS3600 Column detailing contradiction

The location of a few items are a bit confusing. High strength concretes seem to have a higher requirement for confinement reinforcement & ties due to concrete brittleness, which I think would be better placed in the relative locations of section 10 & 11 instead of being placed in section 14.

RE: AS3600 Column detailing contradiction

The requirements for Brittleness are in 10.7.

The extra requirement for Seismic are in 14.5.4 which refers back to 10.7 for checks on Brittleness based on strength to make sure you check both.

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



News


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