MINUTES
FLEXURAL AND AXIAL LOADS SUBCOMMITTEE
Cancun, Mexico
May 16, 2008
1.0 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 am by Dave Pierson, who is substituting for Dick Bennett
today. Dave gave an overview of the meeting.
2.0 Membership list was sent around for sign-in.
Members present: David Pierson, Dean Brown, Thomas Petreshock, Rhett Whitlock,
Raymond Miller, S.K. Ghosh, Ed Huston, Manuel Diaz, Russ Brown, Darrell McMillian,
Chukwuma Ekwueme, John Tawresey, Fernando Fonseca, Sunup Mathew
Members Absent with Apologies: Dick Bennett
Members Absent: Dan Abrams, Craig Henderson
Other Attendees: Mike Mota, Jason Thompson, Diane Throop, Rochelle Jaffe, Richard
Klingner, Ahmad Hamid
3.0 The minutes from the Pittsburg November 12, 2007 meeting were approved.
4.0 The agenda was also approved.
5.0 Results of the ballots discussed in the meeting are as follows:
5.1 Main Committee Ballot #1
5.1.2 – Main Committee Ballot #1 –

Per agenda, passed but negatives to resolve. Reballoted on Main Committee #2.
5.2 Main Committee Ballot #2
5.2.1 – Main Committee Ballot # 2 –

Ballot Item 02-F-02B - Max Porter removed negative.

Ballot Item 02-F-02B - Dave read Russ Brown’s comment from the Main Ballot.
Russ raised the issue of the code being ambiguous as to what steel area is in tension.
There is no strain condition defined to indicate where the neutral axis is, therefore the
tension steel area cannot be defined.
Dick will draft a subcommittee ballot and coordinate with Ed Huston on performing a
trial design.

Ballot Item 02-F-03 –
o
Biggs comment found non-persuasive by unanimous vote.
o
Borchelt comment found non-persuasive by unanimous vote.
o
Klingner/McGinley (Strike the last sentence, “Strength design…) - [Support
(12); Oppose (0); Abstain (0)]
o

Thompson negative resolved.
Ballot Item 02-F-07 –
o
Delete the last sentence in the code “The spacing of lateral supports shall be
permitted to be increased if a stability analysis that includes the effects of
torsional loading demonstrates that the beam does not fail in a buckling mode.”
[Also delete the last sentence in the commentary]
o
The subcommittee voted to keep this item as continuing business and resubmit to
main [Support (11), Opposed (0), Abstain (0)] Assign beam stability language to
Russ and Dick will coordinate.

Ballot Item 02-F-08 –
o
Remove language “Allowable stress design of beams…” [Support (12), Oppose
(0), Abstain (0)].
o
Russ Brown made comment that the shear criterion needs to be addressed.
o
John Tawresey commented that the code needs better definition of a beam.
o
Biggs found non-persuasive [Support (14), Oppose (0), Abstain (0)]
o
The subcommittee assigned to Ed Huston and Ray Miller to coordinate with
Shear Subcommittee and define shear capacity of partially grouted beam.

Ballot Item 02-F-09 – No opposition to using the word “compatibility”.

Ballot Item 02-F-11 – Use the term ф f’m/1.67 [Support (13), Oppose (0), Abstain
(0)].
Comment by Fernando Fonseca – it’s not uncommon for university students to
confuse which is ф factor – the suggested term above seems to be the most straight
forward format to avoid confusion.
5.3 – Subcommittee Ballot #1
5.3.1 Ballot Item #2 –

Found Sunup Mathew comment persuasive [Support (14), Oppose (0), Abstain (0)].

Subcommittee suggested moving h/r<99 to General Requirements

Dick will write proposed language for “distance of lateral support for columns shall
be h/r < 99”

Russ Brown raised the issue of defining lateral support for hollow column or a “C”
shaped column.
5.3.2 Ballot Item #3 – Defer to future business
5.3.3 Ballot Item #8 –

Subcommittee found Dan Abrams persuasive [ Support (14), Oppose (0), Abstain
(0)]

Russ Brown withdrew negative.
5.4 Subcommittee Ballot #2
5.4.1 Ballot Item xx-F-006 –

Found Dave Pierson negative persuasive [Support (13), Oppose (0), Abstain (1)].

The subcommittee raised the suggestion that the code should allow a tubular column
to be designed as a wall rather than a column section (without having to address the
buckling issue).

Subcommittee suggested to consider for future discussion, how to consider box
beams.
6.0 Continuing Business
6.1 Beams, General requirements (Attachment 4)

Subcommittee would like to study further.
6.2 Deep Beams

Sunup Mathew and Fernando Fonseca will write-up for subcommittee ballot and
submit to Dick.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 am with the next meeting in Salt Lake City, UT