Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

# Re: FW: Compression Capacities for WFs with Webs Not Compact

• To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
• Subject: Re: FW: Compression Capacities for WFs with Webs Not Compact
• From: Szuchuan Chang <szuchuan(--nospam--at)gmail.com>
• Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:05:13 -0800

```Curt,

I 'll look into it. Thanks

Sam

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:57:34 -0500, LaCount, Curt
<Curt.LaCount(--nospam--at)jacobs.com> wrote:
> Sam,
>
> It looks to me like you are using f=36 ksi in equation A-B5-12.  The value
> should be the computed elastic stress, which in this case is limited by
> column buckling to 7.13 ksi.  At that stress, there is no reduction for be.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Curt La Count
> Jacobs Engineering
> Portland, OR
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Szuchuan Chang [mailto:szuchuan(--nospam--at)gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 8:28 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Compression Capacities for WFs with Webs Not Compact
>
> Hi,
>
> I am reviewing an existing building with LRFD steel design.  Along the
> drag lines of a roof diaphragm are the existing W14x22 beams that
> suppose to pass on the collected diaphragm shear to the brace frame at
> the end of the building.  I am treating these beams as compression
> members just to see if it can take the loads to the brace frame.
> (Ignore bending for the moment.)
>
> Fy=36 ksi;
> bf/2tf of the W14x22 is 7.46 which meets the flange compactness of 15.9;
> h/tw of the W14x22 is 53.3 which is bigger than the compactness of 42.3;
> assuming the beam is braced at 15 feet along the weak axis.
> Kl/r = 173.1;
> Table 3-36 on the manual page 16.1-143 give phi*Fcr = 7.13 ksi.
> area = 6.49 sq in
> Pall (without reducing for no-compact web) = 7.13*6.49 = 46.3 kips
>
> To account for the reduction on the effectiveness on the web,
> I apply the Eq A-B5-12 on pg 16.1-91
> (using b=13.7 & t=0.23)
> I get "b sub e" = 10.2 inches.
>
> I than reduce the cross section area form 6.49 - 0.23*(13.7-10.2) =
> 5.69 sq inches
>
> The new capacity I got is reduced to 40.5 kips.
>
> Question? Am I doing this correctly?
>
> Thanks
>
> Sam
>
>
> ==============================================================================
> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing,
> copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended
> recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
> error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting
>
> ==============================================================================
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted