To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: RE: Built-up Columns
From: "Smith, Steven A" <Steve.Smith(--nospam--at)PSS.Boeing.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 08:30:15 -0700
An additional aspect of this problem is to consider the potential of beam-column behavior, resulting from incidental eccentricity of the load, p-delta effects or other moments that may be applied to the member. In this case the compression-side sub-members may require an even lower kl/r than the built-up column criteria specifies.
Steve Smith, PE,SE
> From: Chanel1096(--nospam--at)aol.com[SMTP:Chanel1096(--nospam--at)aol.com]
> Reply To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 6:33 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Built-up Columns
> I'll repost my question a little differently.
> I have two steel members which I want to have act as a built-up member.
> Now per section E4 (AISC-ASD) for a built up member the spacing of the
> connections of the members should be such that the l/r < 3/4 of the
> governing ratio of the combined member.
> My question came in that say the actual kl/r value of the combined member was
> 80 meaning that the required l/r for the smaller members be less that 60. If
> this ratio was not readily obtainable but lets assume 75 is, what if I base
> the strength of the combined member on a kl/r of at least 100, rather like a
> partially composite beam. Any comments or suggestions would be very helpful.
> Bill King, EIT