Why Chapter E if Instability is Now by Direct Method?
Why Chapter E if Instability is Now by Direct Method?
(OP)
Pals
The Direct method(DM) is found to be practical because INTERACTION equation with this method and with the old effective length method(ELM) seem to give similar results. Makes sense if things turn out that equal with K=1.00
Does this mean DM is to be used only in P+M situation(interaction)? not for P only situation(no interaction)? Is that why Chapter E is retained?
Your comment will be highly appreciated.Thanks in advance
respects
ijr
The Direct method(DM) is found to be practical because INTERACTION equation with this method and with the old effective length method(ELM) seem to give similar results. Makes sense if things turn out that equal with K=1.00
Does this mean DM is to be used only in P+M situation(interaction)? not for P only situation(no interaction)? Is that why Chapter E is retained?
Your comment will be highly appreciated.Thanks in advance
respects
ijr





RE: Why Chapter E if Instability is Now by Direct Method?
The DM does a good (but approximate) job capturing elastic and inelastic flexural buckling of FRAMES. It's ability to do this with individual members is imperfect. I suppose with engineering judgement, you could do so by introducing some member out-of-straightness directly in your analysis. Also, it still may not adequately capture the flexural-torsional or torsional buckling failure modes very well.
Perhaps eventually we will get to the point where buckling is captured entirely from the analysis and chapter E will be elimintated or greatly simplified. If that happens, I think the DM will be viewed as the first major step down that road. But, by itself it doesn't get us there.
RE: Why Chapter E if Instability is Now by Direct Method?