Settingsun
Structural
- Aug 25, 2013
- 1,513
AS4100 uses 'sub-segment' to refer to lengths of beams that have and L restraint at one or both ends, while 'segment' means both ends are F or P. NZS3404 uses 'segment' for all cases and does not use 'sub-segment' (except it's mentioned in the Notation section - probably forgot to delete from the AS4100 base document).
The note under Table 5.6.1 (same table number in both standards) seems to reinforce this difference. NZS specifically mentions that the restraint shown on the diagrams can be an F, P or L restraint whereas AS lists F and P restraints only.
I've always taken it the NZS way and dug up an ASI/AISC example that supports that. Are the words after the first comma in AS4100 clause 5.6.1.1(a)(iv) meant to apply when using the hand method as well as elastic buckling analysis? I think the formatting is a bit off and there's meant to be a new line after the comma. Then followed by the alpha_s paragraph not being indented. As it stands, the alpha_s looks like a part of (iv) rather than applying regardless of how alpha_m is determined.
If sub-segment makes no practical difference, I prefer the NZS wording.
The note under Table 5.6.1 (same table number in both standards) seems to reinforce this difference. NZS specifically mentions that the restraint shown on the diagrams can be an F, P or L restraint whereas AS lists F and P restraints only.
I've always taken it the NZS way and dug up an ASI/AISC example that supports that. Are the words after the first comma in AS4100 clause 5.6.1.1(a)(iv) meant to apply when using the hand method as well as elastic buckling analysis? I think the formatting is a bit off and there's meant to be a new line after the comma. Then followed by the alpha_s paragraph not being indented. As it stands, the alpha_s looks like a part of (iv) rather than applying regardless of how alpha_m is determined.
If sub-segment makes no practical difference, I prefer the NZS wording.