[Bell Historians] Steelwork into masonry (spelling corrected!)

[Paul Marshall]

Whilst I am not qualified at all (let alone better!), I would have thought
that if the grillage is stiff and all beam ends are firmly grouted in, the
load on all the beam ends should be equal, effectively making the tower and
grillage together one structure. The main problem I can imagine is strange
movements of the tower (e,g, twisting, walls moving different amounts due to
shape, material and constructional problems etc.)

 

Just a thought,

 

Paul

 

  _____  

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of David Beacham
Sent: 24 February 2007 09:21
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Steelwork into masonry (spelling corrected!)

 

DB Said:

 

It would be interesting to hear the comments of those who are better
qualified than I am on this question (i.e the purpose of "anti-drag"
cleats). In *theory* (which I emphasise), a properly designed and
constructed frame foundation grillage should transfer all the horizontal
forces into the walls that are parallel with those forces, such that there
is then no end-thrust into any of the walls. In this perfect situation
cleats would, indeed, be unnecessary. To achieve this requires the beams to
be of adequate stiffness and, most importantly, diagonally braced so as to
resist parallelogram distortion.(Plus other refinements such as all bolts to
be a close fit in reamed bolt holes.) As regards the stiffness factor, for
the past 30 years or so the steel used has been of Universal Beam section,
which has parallel flanges. Formerly, the steels were Rolled Steel Joists
that had tapered flanges. Is it not the case that UBs are inherently more
flexible than RSJs?

 

 

 

           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20070225/11309177/attachment.html>