ETAG Annex C I think itself follows EN 1992-4. The 'steel failure with lever arm' equations appear in Section 7.2.2.3.2, while conditions for considering or not the standoff / lever arm appear in Section 6.2.2.3. HILTI Profis I think 'navigates' this based on input parameters. AISC i remember...
Interesting situation. Probably the most accurate method of assessing the capacity of your built up beam is to do some finite element analysis (either a linear buckling analysis to get the critical moment or a full nonlinear analysis in which the initial imperfection seeded in the beam geometry...
usually people refer to those terms as:
1. local buckling - instability of a component of a structural member (e.g. the flange of a beam as ESPcomposites notes)
2. global buckling - instability of a structural member
3. global buckling - instability of a structure
From here, it depends on what...
It is difficult to understand what you are asking, at least for me, maybe indicating some confusion on your part on the nature of the LTB concept (and maybe why you have received no replies here). LTB engages both lateral stiffness (Iz) and rotational stiffness (Iw, It). All these 3 terms go...
what does this scale factor do in aci? is it accounting for energy dissipation mechanisms? if so, then the eurocode factor which does this is 'q' and called a behavior factor and its choice depends on several things. although you asking above if it could be 9800 leads me to think you are...
It seems likely to me that in the years and decades to come, 3d printing, combined with such optimization systems (which could get enhanced by deep learning type algorithms) will be increasingly used. I would expect that advancements in 3d printing technology for the construction sector will...
@oengineer though i am not familiar with american codes, i believe such a handrail load you mention above should be considered specifically for the design of the guardrail system and to be able to transfer this small load from the handrail level to the platform level. my understanding is that...
sorry for the late check-in. appreciate all the answers.
Thanks a lot. I've only just skimmed the first few posts and I can tell it will be of good use. I will come back after having a thorough look. If this is not a sign I missed reading up on this forum a bit too much I dont know what is :)...
Gents,
I am looking into design principles of aprox. 1m wide walkways as follows: side beams are UNP profiles (expected size about UNP200) and transverse beams per 1-1.2m, either fully welded IPE80-IPE100 in the 'center' of the UNPs; the load, length and support conditions for walkways...
these are very initial points as i have just finished reading the thread. will come back most likely this weekend with a more detailed post. until then, 3 quick things:
1. i believe this is a fantastic idea and the sort of thing that could really take off.
2. have you considered also targeting...
@canwesteng good point. i dont know what code op is using but in eurocode the inelastic part is accounted for through the imperfection factors in the chosen buckling curves...
@op remember to brace the beams by taking the restraining forces to a bracing system or similar. in other words...
no time wasted. trust is good, mistrust is better in this field at the end of the day, right? thanks for the reply kootk, when i’ll have the chance i’ll sharpen the pencil a bit, with such replies in mind. the side plates in my specific case were also wood, which makes matters even more...
for me, the post is not quite clear since you first say that you are looking for the influence of intermediate bracings (i.e. discrete restraints which prevent LTB) but then refer to the the influence of intermediate stiffeners. which one is it? as far as i know, the presence of (full depth web)...
