UFC 4-023-03
25 January 2005
Table F-8 Acceptability Criteria Check for Columns (4 2x6 SYP No. 2)
Structural Behavior
Demand
Capacity
Notes
Assumed for example as
Element Flexure
NA
NA
compression member
4 2x6 wall
studs - φλP' =
N.G., 6x8 SYP No. 1
Pu = 46.5 k
column sufficient if studs
50.5 k (IF
(adjacent span
Combined Axial and
not braced in weak
braced in
Bending
load using 3-
direction
weak dir.; but
2.3.1)
φλP' = 49.1 k
dwgs do not
specify)
OK - Assumed shear load
Shear
NA
NA
is negligible since shear
walls take lateral loads
Not designed for this
Connections
NA
NA
example
Deformation
NA
NA
The analysis shows that for these spans and the loads shown in Table F-3,
the 8 x 12 timber girder is not sufficient for the limit states of bending and shear. In
addition, the 4- 2x6 columns that provide support to the girder are insufficient to support
the reactions from the spans impacted by the column removal and the adjacent bay.
When modeled as simply supported, the span would require a 6.75" x 12.375" 26F SYP
glue laminated beam. In addition, the column would need to be a minimum of 6x8 SYP
No. 1 column if un-braced in the weak direction.
If continuity were considered when the column is removed, the moment
demand on the girder would be reduced. However, column demand may increase.
Another option would be to use interior load bearing walls in a cellular layout, similar to
Figure F-11. This avoids "frame" action and could reduce the amount of load to be
redistributed. If these same load bearing walls acted as shear walls and were clad with
structural sheathing, "deep beam" action of the wall panel may be possible. It is also
remains an option to develop the vertical tie capacity and eliminate the need to show
F-16
Previous Page
