RE: K FACTORS[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: K FACTORS
- From: Charlie Carter <carter(--nospam--at)aiscmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:29:21 -0600
>Ever consider getting rid of the K's altogether (ref ASCE "Effective Length
>and Notional Load Approaches for Assessing Frame Stability....)?
Good point, Peter. However, there are two camps in the stability arena: those that think advanced analysis techniques can be used with K = 1 in all cases and those that don't. I can't tell which set of great minds is "winning" at this point, but the discussions are very interesting and enlightening.
The ASCE report you mentioned is a very good state-of-the-art summary. It is also a starting point of sorts for a current effort of the AISC Committee on Specifications to revamp treatment of stability. The notional load method (which I know you like) is certainly being considered for its merits, as are all other acceptable approaches. Personally, I hope the conclusions and recommendations allow for the use of any rational and acceptable treatment of stability in the design office.
- Prev by Subject: RE: K FACTORS
- Next by Subject: K FACTORS
- Previous by thread: RE: K FACTORS
- Next by thread: K FACTORS