×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

AISC LRFD Rectangular HSS Column Effective Area Mistake?

AISC LRFD Rectangular HSS Column Effective Area Mistake?

AISC LRFD Rectangular HSS Column Effective Area Mistake?

(OP)
Has anyone come across a problem with calculating the reduced effective width be of a rectnagular section neede for deriving the Q factor used in assessing the compression capacty of a rectangular HSS section. I cannot find any literature which addresses this thoroughly enough.

I rever to:

HSS 10x2x1/4
lambda_b (b/t)wall slenerness of 5.6
lambda_h (h/t) wall slenderness of 39.92
Pu  = 0.87 kip
Ag = 5.24 in*in

Non Compact wall slenderness lambda_r=1.4 SQRT(E/Fy) = 35.2

hence, Lambda_h > lambda_r

hence, in acccordancwe with HSS provisions for LRFD design - see p.16.2-6 LRFD 3rd Edtion, Section 4.2., EQ 4.2-7

be= 1.91*t*SQRT(E/f)*((1-(0.381/lambda_b)*SQRT(E/f))

f = Pu/Ag = 0.166ksi
E= 29000 ksi
I always get a NEGATIVE value of be that is 100 times or so larger than b. I can only get teh equation to work if the lambda_b value i ssomething like 200 which is crazy.

For the current values

lambda_b gives -5118.001 in !!!!!
lambda_h gives -5555.917 in !!!

I ahve checked noth the 2000 and 1996 HSS specificaitons produced by AISC and they are the same for this equation!

Any help would be apreciated!

thanks

RE: AISC LRFD Rectangular HSS Column Effective Area Mistake?

Well, my first thought was why such a large column for an 870 pound load?

Note that while lambda_h > lambda_r
                lambda_b < lambda_r, so using lambda_b Q=1

I would guess that has something to do with why the calc is blowing up, but I would have to look deeper to be sure. Since f is the applied stress the equation would seem to work out better when the section is near capacity and buckling would become an issue in non-compact sections. The b/t of 200 could be a thin wall tube.

Without more info I would say reduce the column to something more reasonable to the loading and redo the calcs.

Rik

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources