RE: Built-up Columns[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Built-up Columns
- From: Robert Rollo <rrollo(--nospam--at)TEAM-PSC.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 14:35:35 -0500
is the original question one of not really using the "built up" concept. is the designer seeking to divide axial load by the number of pieces and design for each pieces share of the axial load using the actual kl/r ? the "built up" meaning that they are attached together for reasons other than structural ?
i have done this in the past, and it was for reasons other than structural (architectural aesthetics).
if there is not an overriding reason to the contrary and you can get the benefit of the "whole is greater that the sum of its parts" why not do it ?
From: Juan C. Gray [SMTP:juangray(--nospam--at)col2.telecom.com.co]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Built-up Columns
The purpose of the AISC specification is to ensure that the column
strength is not defined by local buckling failure between connectors ,
but by the overall strength of the built up member.
Juan C. Gray
******* ******* ******* ***
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to
* admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message type
* "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email
* to admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message
* type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send
* email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org ****** ****** ********
- Prev by Subject: Re: Built-up Columns
- Next by Subject: RE: Built-up Columns
- Previous by thread: Re: Built-up Columns
- Next by thread: RE: Built-up Columns