Search results for query: *

Thanks Steve--working on what you said (making braces symmetric) Ronroberts- the summation 3.5 + 8.5 cos (theta) is not equal 7.89. Am attaching a line model again http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=bc674c4f-71b0-469b-8b7f-6c4099981597&file=model_line_digm.jpg

As well as attached a pic showing the node numbershttp://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=589b1840-eaa5-4f00-b2a2-7a0ada8f9393&file=pic_node_numbers.pdf

hi, Thanks again.Yes,fiz is also present. What do you suggest now?Does this indicate probllem in restraint definition? Attached is the list of displacements without braceshttp://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=061b200f-cc8e-40a9-bf9d-895e111561fb&file=without_braces.doc

Thanks a lot all. however, I find that even on removing ALL the braces lateral drift exists. Is this indicative of problem in defining the restraints?

I am also attaching the results of deformation for the selected beams above. But,Steve as i mentioned , the brace is not stiffer than the column-both have same cross sectional area but length of brace is more than the column length kslee2000, the graph attached was for translations-not...

Steve,did you mean the horizontal members highlighted in the figure in the attached file?http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=c209cc13-dc99-4291-b9b6-3e4caa68da8b&file=selection_beams.bmp

Thanks Steve.Will check on that.Yes, there exist lateral drift.Enclosed is the displacement (translation)at the nodes.What does presence of drift(ux in the attached file) indicative of? The blue colour are the hinges to have free rotation at those ends of the...

I removed the bracings and checked that the frame remains stable. The compressive force in the column (the column which has less axial force in the presence of bracing) without bracing was 7.89 KN When, I put all the bracings the compressive force in that columns was 3.5 KN and in the brace...

Hi--here is a picture--can anyone advise now? I have some hinges also at member ends as you may noticehttp://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=7379d649-7c16-43ef-97bf-7f2c0a8336c2&file=model_braced_frame.jpg

No axial stiffness of the brace is not greater than axial stiffness of the column.Both have same area but the brace is longer than the column.

I have an analysis model composed of bracings,beams and columns. When I have verical loads only applied to my structure, I find the axial forces in bracing (in some of them) greater than the columns connected to it. What could be the reason?

SCIA Engineer

I've applied a line load on the edge of a 2-D plate.The edge is a curved edge (in the form of an arc). In the software,I use,the user need not mention the orientation of the line load--that is, I just set the load being applied over the LCS of the edge and direction (X,Y or Z). Is the laod...

Hi all, As most suggest using a free body diagram and an integration scheme to fet forces/displacements within the element. However, once we use an integration scheme we are doing essentially conventional mechanics. What am trying to question is,whether is there any procedure that one could...

Hi all, In an analysis, if a member is specified as tension-only,but during first analysis found in compression,then (As said by asixth) in the reanalysis(second time) that member would be deleted from the calculation and reanalysis carried out.This would thus modify the structural stiffness...

Hi, I've found that some software packages have an option of specifying a particular member as a "Tension only" member. However,I've never used this functionality in my practise so far (though I am relatively new to the field!). I am curious to know what is the advantage of specifying a...

Please note that as I mentioned above: "---additional eccentricity may be assumed to vary linearly from zero at top and bottom of the wall, to a value ea over the central fifth of the wall height---" this statement is included in the Annex B of BS 5628.

Under the current revision of BS5628 part 1:2005 and Annex B there is a requirement to include for additional eccentricity for slenderness effects in walls (or columns) where the slenderness ratio is less than or equal to 6. Now this "additional eccentricity may be assumed to vary linearly...

Hi, A bit of survey on the revised BS 5950 1990 to BS 5950:2000(though not recent but need to have some validations prepared!): 1. Going through BS 5950-1990, there was a clause that if the effective length of the member is less than the limiting length then then the lateral buckling check is...