Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: L in deflection criteria[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org, SHERMANWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com
- Subject: Re: L in deflection criteria
- From: jerome.tan(--nospam--at)PAREURO.COM
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 9:33:12 +0000
Didn't notice this before. How about giving me reference that I could look up. This same formula has been adopted by our local code here (actually, a copy of the UBC, ACI, AISC combined in one "Code") for years (as I can remember). ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: L in deflection criteria Author: MIME:SHERMANWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com at INTERNET Date: 7/18/98 1:28 AM Roger Turk wrote: >..."L" should be the distance between points of inflection. >With regard to a cantilever..."L" equal to twice the cantilever length would >be a conservative assumption ... I do not agree with this. I think that "L" should simply be the length of the member relative to its support points, i.e. for a cantilever, the length from support point to the free end of the member; or for non-cantilevered members, the length between support points. The concern is maximum total deflection relative to the support point where "zero" relative deflection is assumed - why should the type of beam curvature matter? But that raises another question: what if you have a secondary framing member supported by a primary framing member? The total deflection relative to column supports would be the sum of the member deflections (but I would only check each individual span per the code). >The requirements of the UBC (Table 16-D, 1997 UBC) have, for non-cambered >construction, been in error for as many years as I have been an engineer... >In essence, the loading for the deflection limitation for L/360 should be not >less than LL+K(DL), where K is the percent of initial DL deflection that >represents the creep that would occur after the brittle finish is applied. >In non-cambered construction, the loading for the L/240 limitation should be >not less than LL+(1+K)DL. You raise a good point here - the code formulas do appear to be in error.
- Prev by Subject: Re: L in deflection criteria
- Next by Subject: Re: L in deflection criteria
- Previous by thread: Re: L in deflection criteria
- Next by thread: Re: L in deflection criteria