×
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

HSS with erection holes - Local buckling check using AISC

HSS with erection holes - Local buckling check using AISC

RE: HSS with erection holes - Local buckling check using AISC

I assume you are worried about the plate thats left between the long slotted holes?
Why not find out the axial forces at these locations (resolve any axial + flexure in the section as a whole to an axial load in these particular locations), and then simply check it as a very short column that could buckle out of plane. I'd say using an effective length of something like 0.7 x plate length is probably appropriate similar to how you might treat buckling of load bearing stiffeners.

RE: HSS with erection holes - Local buckling check using AISC

(OP)
Thanks for your response. I have the same idea but the review engineer doesn't agree with this approach and wants me to check the local buckling of the HSS shape at this location.

RE: HSS with erection holes - Local buckling check using AISC

You'd check the rest of the section based in it being a C shape for the loads in the rest of the section, you'd evaluate the effective section properties of this C shape based on the outstand to the holes (rest of the section will have the same slenderness as the original HSS, but these newly formed outstands will most likely be compact.

Once you have the properties just evaluate the strength of the C like you normally would, also check the bit between the holes as a short column as previously noted.

RE: HSS with erection holes - Local buckling check using AISC

(OP)
And you suggest to use K=0.7 (pinned-fixed).
Would it be overly conservative to use K=1.0 (pinned-pinned)?

RE: HSS with erection holes - Local buckling check using AISC

If it works then no issue, I believe it would be conservative, not overly so.

Not 100% familiar with AISC, but my own local code for Stiffener Design uses 0.7 effective length factor if the stiffener is welded and rotation is constrained. Perhaps something similar exists in AISC to justify your design checks.

RE: HSS with erection holes - Local buckling check using AISC

(OP)
Thanks once again!
Regards,
Su

RE: HSS with erection holes - Local buckling check using AISC

(OP)
For the C shape, would it be ok to resolve the axial compression and flexure in the section as a whole to an axial compression load and then check for buckling?

RE: HSS with erection holes - Local buckling check using AISC

Assuming at the point where the holes are you have a global axial and moment forces acting on the cross section, then the C shape over the length of the holes simply sees the loads occurring in only the C due to these loads. It won't be a purely axial force. For example consider the stresses across the section as its easier to visualise, they won't be uniform, they will instead vary due to the presence of any moment.

Don't forget to also check the global buckling of the entire length, some codes require you to use the net area of the section (gross section reduced by the area of the holes) to check the section capacity and axial buckling of the entire member.

RE: HSS with erection holes - Local buckling check using AISC

New Zealand and Australian steel codes require the net area to be used for global compression checks except when the area deducted by penetrations or unfilled holes is less than a certain percentage of the gross area(being 100 {1 – [fy / (0.85fu)]}%)

Whereas other codes such as Eurocode specifically note that the net area doesn't require consideration for compression checks.

AISC only notes the gross area, and there is no mention at all of the net area in the compression rules.

Edit, I see the previous poster deleted their question about what codes used the net area as I was typing my reply!

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

eBook - Mastering Tolerances for Machined Parts
When making CNC machined parts, mastering tolerances can be challenging. Are general tolerances good enough? When does it make sense to call out for tighter tolerances? Do you need a better understanding of fits, datums, or GD&T? Learn about these topics and more in Xometry's new e-book. Download Now
eBook – How to Choose the Correct Corrosion Testing Method
When designing a metal component, engineers have to consider how susceptible certain alloys are to corrosion in the final product’s operating environment. In a recent study by NACE (National Association of Corrosion Engineers), it was estimated that the direct and indirect costs of corrosion in the United States is approximately 6.2% of the GDP. In 2016, that cost exceeded $1 trillion dollars for the first time. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close