×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

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!

*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

AS4100 vs NZS3404: alpha_m & L restraints

AS4100 vs NZS3404: alpha_m & L restraints

AS4100 vs NZS3404: alpha_m & L restraints

(OP)
AS4100 uses 'sub-segment' to refer to lengths of beams that have and L restraint at one or both ends, while 'segment' means both ends are F or P. NZS3404 uses 'segment' for all cases and does not use 'sub-segment' (except it's mentioned in the Notation section - probably forgot to delete from the AS4100 base document).

The note under Table 5.6.1 (same table number in both standards) seems to reinforce this difference. NZS specifically mentions that the restraint shown on the diagrams can be an F, P or L restraint whereas AS lists F and P restraints only.

I've always taken it the NZS way and dug up an ASI/AISC example that supports that. Are the words after the first comma in AS4100 clause 5.6.1.1(a)(iv) meant to apply when using the hand method as well as elastic buckling analysis? I think the formatting is a bit off and there's meant to be a new line after the comma. Then followed by the alpha_s paragraph not being indented. As it stands, the alpha_s looks like a part of (iv) rather than applying regardless of how alpha_m is determined.

If sub-segment makes no practical difference, I prefer the NZS wording.

RE: AS4100 vs NZS3404: alpha_m & L restraints

I think it's essentially saying the same thing, but noted in a more roundabout (and possibly confusing) way, but then I'm working to NZS3404, so it's wordings naturally makes more sense to me.

All the literature I've ever seen whether Australian or New Zealand checks things between restraints, be they F, P or L. Irrespective of the segment/subsegment definition. To be honest I'd never even noticed the subtle differences in calling up sub-segments before in AS4100.

I agree regarding the words after the comma applying to both hand and buckling analysis methods, but see below as the same requirement is noted for hand method in 5.6.3.

If you look at NZS3404, it throws the remainder after this into another titled subsection to separate it.

In AS4100 the definitions under 5.6.3 for the hand method backs up the above, and are identical to the requirement in NZS3404 clause 5.3.1.2. If you like the hand methods covered here (5.6.3), and the buckling analysis is covered under 5.6.1.1(a)(iv)? Bit confusing but they are essentially saying the same thing, so NZS3404 seems to have collected them together in one place to avoid any thoughts of a different interpretation for either hand or buckling analysis methods.

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! Already a Member? Login



News


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