0 Votes +0 Votes -

78 vues11 pagesStability concepts (briefly)

May 18, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

Stability concepts (briefly)

© All Rights Reserved

78 vues

Stability concepts (briefly)

© All Rights Reserved

- Steel Magazzine
- DIN 976.pdf
- Design of Timber Structures 1-2015
- Belt Truss as Lateral Load Resisting Structural System for Tall Building: A Review
- The Network Arch 19-08-2014
- New Microsoft Word Document (2)
- e6-139-05
- STEEL5( 39PAGES)
- Column
- civil engineering project
- 5 Compression Members -1
- Concrete Filled With High Strength Steel Box Column for Tall Building-behavior & Design
- Aeronautic Component Optimization With Linear Buckling Criterion_final ( 2x Impressão)
- Design of Columns-LESSON 10
- 1 Sem ME Civil(Structure)
- Column
- files-4-Lectures_Microsoft_PowerPoint_-_Ch2_Trusses.ppt.pdf
- PROPOSAL IRTDC Final.pdf
- Technical Memorandum WHOI 3 81
- Step 9

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Joseph A. Yura

Joseph A. Yura, PE, is Emeritus Professor in Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. He earned a

BSCE degree from Duke, MS from Cornell and a PhD from Lehigh in 1965. He has received numerous teaching

awards during his 40 years of teaching at the U. of Texas. His research contributions are in the areas of stability,

connections, composite construction, offshore structures and elastomeric bearings. He served 32 years as a member

of the AISC Specification Committee. In 2000 he was elected into the National Academy of Engineering for his

work in stability and bracing of steel structures.

ABSTRACT

Five important stability concepts are reviewed: loss of stiffness as the buckling load is approached, inelastic column

buckling, effect of end connection details in built-up columns, lean-on bracing systems and column bracing

fundamentals. The importance of viewing instability as a stiffness issue rather than a strength problem is

emphasized. Physical models and structural failures are used throughout the lecture to illustrate the concepts. Some

unusual applications of the stability concepts are presented.

JOSEPH A. YURA

INTRODUCTION

A theoretical evaluation of stability requires a second order structural analysis, i.e. equilibrium is established for the

deflected position of the structure, not a typical first order analysis. Since most formal engineering education focuses

on the use of first order analysis, many practitioners have had little structural training in stability issues. Usually,

formulas in design specifications for column, beam and frame buckling and for bracing requirements provide the

only means of checking stability. The simplicity and format (stress rather than load, for example) of these formulas

can mask important stability principles.

Five important stability concepts will be reviewed:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

inelastic column buckling

importance of end connection details in built-up columns

stiffness and strength required for braces

lean-on bracing systems

Two and a half centuries ago, Euler developed his now famous elastic column buckling formula

Pcr =

2 EI

(1)

L2

At that time the modulus of elasticity, E, and the moment of inertia, I, as defined presently were unknown quantities.

Euler determined the elastic rigidity term EI from the measured end deflection at the end of a cantilever beam with

an applied load W using the known relationship = WL3/3(EI). The column was assumed initially straight in the

derivation. The use of the Euler formula implies that the initially straight member will remain straight until the Euler

load is reached, thus providing little warning of an impending failure. At the Euler load the column bends without

any increase in load (small deflection theory); the column has lost its stiffness.

1

Euler

0.8

P/ Pcr

If the column is assumed to have an initial out-ofstraightness, the following relationship can be

derived (McQuire,1968):

0

T =

(2)

1 P

Pcr

where o is the initial out-of-straightness, T is

the total deflection when a compressive load P is

applied and Pcr is the buckling load. A plot of Eq.

(2) is shown in Fig. 1. As the applied load P

approaches the buckling load, the slope of the P T relationship (stiffness) approaches zero. Since

all members in a structure have some initial outof-straightness, flexural displacements will get

very large near the theoretical buckling load thus

providing ample warning of impending disaster.

1st yield

o/L=0.001

L/r=160

Fy=50 ksi

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

10

T/ o

Column

2

Observations from some actual structural stability failures spanning a period of almost a hundred years will illustrate

this point.

Quebec Bridge Failure on August 29, 1907 At the time of its construction, the Quebec railroad bridge over the

St. Lawrence River was the longest span double cantilever bridge in the world. The bridge just prior to collapse is

shown in Fig.2. The bridge collapsed as shown in Fig. 3 due to buckling of the compression chords of the truss. The

photos shown were scanned from the official report of the collapse (Canada, 1919).

From (Tarkov, 1986):

On August 6 McLure reported to Cooper that lower chords 7L and 8-L of the south cantilever arm were bent. Cooper was

troubled. He wired back with instructions, and with the almost

plaintive question: How did bend occur in both chords?

Chief Engineer Deans insisted that chords 7-L and 8-L had

already been bent when they left the shop. McLure insisted

that they only began to show deflection after being installed on

the bridge. The debate over chords 7-L and 8-L occupied the

greater part of August. Meanwhile work continued, and the

stresses on the lower chords grew.

On August 20 chords 8-R, 9-R, and 10-R showed distortion.

The bridge was collapsing with glacial slowness, but no one not even Cooper, for all his concern in the face of the Phoenix

Bridge Companys almost cavalier attitude - appreciated fully

what was happening. On August 27 the crisis should have

been obvious to all. A week before, chord 9-L of the south

anchor arm had been only three-quarters of an inch out of line.

On the morning of August 27, McLure measured it again. The

deflection was now two and one-quarter inches. McLure

wrote to Cooper immediately. Shortly before 11:30 a.m. on

August 29, Cooper read it, and at 12:16 p.m. he sent a terse

telegram to Phoenixville that read: Add no more load to

bridge till after due consideration of facts. McLure will be

over at five oclock.

John Deans read it - and disregarded it. The workers stayed on

the bridge. When McLure arrived at five oclock, Deans and

Figure 3. Nineteen Thousand Tons of Steel

Peter Szlapka met with him. They agreed to meet again in the

at Failure

morning, when a letter from Phoenixs field engineer at

Quebec was due to arrive. The letter would support the Phoenix Companys position that the chords had left

Phoenixville slightly bent but serviceable. Almost precisely as the meeting adjourned, chords 9-L and 9-R of the

anchor arm buckled, and the Quebec Bridge collapsed.

Hartford Coliseum Collapse on January 18, 1978. The Hartford Coliseum roof structure was a long span space

truss constructed mainly with double angle members. The 30 million dollar structure totally collapsed on January 18,

1978, at 4 a.m., just six hours after the completion of a U. Conn basketball game with five thousand attendees. No

one was injured. There was an ice-snow storm underway at the time of the collapse, but the snow loads were well

within the design load limits. The collapse occurred about three years after construction.

From the Report of the Committee to Investigate the Coliseum Roof Failure, July 13, 1978:

LZA concluded that the initiating cause of the collapse of the Coliseum's space truss roof was a design

deficiency related directly to inadequate bracing of certain top chord compression members of the space truss.

The structural designer, F-B-Y, assumed that all top chord members were supported or braced at their midpoints

when in fact, all exterior top chord members were unbraced for their full 30~foot lengths and most interior top

chord members were only partially braced at their midpoints by a flexible bracing system.

The space truss was assembled on the ground and then lifted into place. During construction the following defection

deficiency was noted:

When F-B-Y designed the space truss, it anticipated deflection at the center of the space truss of 13.07 in.

under full dead and live (snow) load. The actual deflection in March and April, 1975 without any snow load

approximated that number according to measurements.

The dead load deflection was expected to be 9 inches. Since some of the truss compression chords were approaching

their buckling load, they had reduced stiffness resulting in greater truss deflection

Marcy Pedestrian Bridge Collapse on October 10, 2002. During the construction of a 171ft span steel trapezoidal

box girder pedestrian bridge in Marcy, NY, global lateral-torsional buckling occurred when the concrete deck pour

was about 60% completed (Weidlinger, 2003). When the steel alone had been erected, one top flange was about 2

inches higher than the other at midspan. The bridge had been previously assembled in the shop to check the camber

and field splices. In the shop the heights of the two flanges were within a few mm of each other. The cause of the

difference in the field was not resolved, but most likely the bridge was already starting to twist under its own dead

weight.

The following is taken from one of the witness accounts:

The crane was lifting buckets full of concrete onto the bridge deck and they had completed pouring the north

half of the deck when we got there. I noticed that then the concrete finishing machine changed directions, that

there was an unusual amount of bounce. I looked at Brian and he looked at me because we both noticed the

bounce at the same time. Brian, Ted and I were joking about me riding my bike across the bridge and I

commented that there better just be one bike. We never imagined that it was going to collapse, but did notice the

unusual amount of bounce. Brian and I were on the deck about ten minutes and then drove back .. to our office

which is about mile away

The bridge collapsed as they reached their office.

These three examples all deliver the same lesson As instability is approached, the structural system is losing its

stiffness, which translates into large displacements for minor changes in load.

Equation (1) overestimates steel column strength,

especially for short columns. There are two main

reasons for the discrepancy, initial out-of-straightness

and material yielding. The highlighted data point in Fig.

1 shows that a slightly out-ofstraight long column (L/r

= 160) will only reach 0.85Pcr before extreme fiber

yielding. In the AISC Specification the maximum

column strength in the elastic range of column

slenderness is taken as 0.877Pcr. Once overall flange

yielding occurs, the column is close to its maximum

strength. The solid line in Fig. 4 shows the first yield

limit for an out-of-straight column, calculated from the

formula P/A + Mc/I = Fy, where M is taken as PT from

Eq.(2). For the o/L = 0.001 and L/d =20 used in the

calculations, the column curve generated is similar to

the AISC column curve for Pcr/Py < 0.5 but is unconservative in the short column range due to residual

stresses as discussed below. The column capacity can be

o/L=0.001

L/d=20

Fy=50 ksi

Pcr/ Py

0.8

AISC

0.6

Euler

0.4

0.2

0

0

25

50

75

L/r

viewed as a combined stress problem provided that the deflection is calculated using Eq. (2) and some modification

is made when factored axial loads are expected to exceed 0.5Py. o can also result from end eccentricities or lateral

loads (see Chapter 4 of McQuire, 1968, written by Winter)

For steel the stress-strain curve of an entire

cross section shows a proportional limit well

below the yield plateau obtained from a test

on a standard tension coupon. The variation

between the stress-strain curves for the full

cross section and the standard coupon

specimen is due to residual stresses in the

member formed during the fabrication or

manufacturing process. The residual stress

distribution and maximum values, which can

not be well controlled, vary significantly

from member to member. The variation in

residual stress is mainly responsible for the

large scatter in column test results (Hall,

1.4

AISC Column Formulas

1.2

Fcr

1.0

Fy

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

ranges (c <1.5 or L/r < 120) shown in Fig. 5

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

c (Slenderness Parameter)

2.0

2.4

where c = ( L r ) Fy / E .

How residual stresses reduce column strength

is typically explained as illustrated in Fig. 6.

When P/A stresses are added to the

compressive residual stresses at the tips of the

flanges, the tips of the flanges reach the yield

stress first. Material within the yield plateau

has no stiffness (E=0) so only the remaining

elastic core (E= 29000 ksi) can resist buckling

(bending). From a stiffness viewpoint, the

cross section has effectively been reduced even

though it appears intact. This explanation

usually receives only tacit approval because it

is difficult to physically understand that

portions of the cross section can become

useless for resisting buckling under certain

levels of applied load.

Total Stress

Fy

Applied

Stress

Fy

Residual

Stress

Elastic core

E = 29000 ksi

Flange tips at yield

Stress, E = 0

Two pinned-end column models with the material and cross sections shown in Fig. 7, were developed to study

bracing requirements in the inelastic range (Gill, 1999). The models worked very well for that purpose but they also

provided a clear evaluation of the zero stiffness principle. A composite cross section B was fabricated by epoxing

two low strength steel sections (40 ksi) to a high strength steel core A (proportional limit = 70 ksi). The high

strength steel core was also tested separately. Column tests were conducted on columns with 19 in. and 9.5 in.

lengths. The 19 in. long columns buckled at stresses less than 40 ksi and composite column B carried 40% greater

load than column A as expected since its cross section was 38% larger (I is also 38% larger). When the 9.5 in. long

columns were tested, both sections A and B buckled at the same load. The stress on the composite column at

buckling was greater than 40 ksi so the low strength steel sections yielded and were ineffective in resisting buckling.

The test showed that our concept of inelastic buckling for steel columns is correct. The lesson from the inelastic

model test has practical importance. If a column in a structure must be reinforced to carry additional load, the

column strength may be affected by the stresses already applied to the column before the reinforcing is added. If

buckling is expected in the elastic range of behavior, the column strength can be established from the cross section

properties of the reinforced column. However, if the added stress (added load/ total reinforced cross section) when

Stress(ksi)

combined with stress already on the core column exceeds the yield stress, then only the moment of inertia of the

added section can be used to determine the buckling load.

100

80

Prop. Limit

1 in

Low Str.

Steel

40

1/2

60

epoxy

20

0

0

0.002

0.004

0.006 0.008

Strain

3/16

3/16

Because of the wide variation in expected out-of-straightness and residual stresses, column design equations in the

inelastic range are determined from curve fits through the test results. However, most design is based on elastic

structural analysis. In order to account for the reduction in stiffness due to inelastic column behavior, the concept of

a Stiffness Reduction Factor (SRF), , was developed (Yura, 1971) to more accurately evaluate frame or system

stability. In other words, the column rigidity in the inelastic range of applied stress is EI. is derived as the ratio of

the inelastic column capacity for a given L/r to the elastic buckling strength for that same L/r. Two common values

of to be used with factored loads are given by Eqs. (3) and (4).

or

( Pu / Py )

0.90

(3)

(4)

where Py is the column squash load, (FyAg), and Pu is the required column strength. SRF = 1.0 when the Pu/Py ratio

is smaller than the limits shown. Eq.(3) is developed from the AISC inelastic column formula, including LRFD

factors, whereas Eq.(4) is based on the column formula used in the 9th Ed. AISC-ASD Specification with the factor

of safety removed. Both give reasonable estimates of the SRF. The use of will be illustrated in the next section.

P CONCEPT FOR SYSTEM BUCKLING

based on effective length. For an individual

column, the alignment chart in the Commentary

of the AISC specification is usually used to

determine its effective length factor K. The

design strength determined from this effective

length may be a rather poor indication of the

actual load that can be supported by the column.

More correctly the design strength obtained

for each column in a story of a frame should be

viewed only as a contribution to the total sway

buckling strength of the story. The structure will

sway buckle when the total load on the story

exceeds the sum of the individual column

contributions (Yura, 1971). The actual load

distribution on each column does not

1.0

P

0.8

Pcr

5P

0.6

P

0.4

0.2

0

Figure 8.

Load

significantly affect the elastic buckling load as shown in Fig. 8. The ratio of the loads on the two columns is . The

plot of the total load on the frame (P + P) versus shows a horizontal relationship except when the entire load is

on one column ( = 0). There is a limitation on the load distribution; the load on any individual column in the story

can not exceed the no-sway capacity of the column.

The P concept provides the potential for design flexibility when dealing with sway instability. Since all columns

must deflect the same amount in the sway mode of buckling, designs need not be confined to supporting the load

specific to each particular column. Lateral stiffness can be concentrated with just a few columns or spread evenly

among all the columns (make all columns in the story the same size). The concept works equally for beam systems.

The concept also shows that lateral loading does not have a significant effect on buckling because the sum of the

vertical forces P does not change with lateral loading. For stability of structural systems, Eq (2) is altered as

follows:

0

(5)

T =

P

1 u

Pcr

so that Pcr Pu. The Pcr term can be evaluated by a number of techniques. For example, the alignment chart can

be used to determine the contribution of each column, including effects, both in the evaluation of the K-factor and

in the contribution itself. In the AISC-LRFD Specification, the individual contribution can be taken as

Pn = 0.90(0.877 )

2 EI

(KL )

= 226000

(KL )2

(6)

Pcr can also be evaluated by using buckling computer programs, 2nd order analysis, or story stiffness methods

presented in a recent seminar (AISC-SSRC, 2003).

The P concept (or lean-on concept as it is sometimes called) is a very powerful design tool. It has been used to

design jacket legs in offshore platforms where a tubular column is inserted inside a round pile. In seismic design,

round tubular sleeves have been placed around compression diagonal braces. The diagonal supporting the entire load

will attempt to buckle as it yields but it will be confined by the exterior sleeve. Since the sleeve has no axial force, it

is elastic and its contribution to the system will be given by the elastic Euler load.

When two members are interconnected with fasteners to create a built-up column such as a double angle member,

the cross section is treated as a single member for design purposes. In the case of composite beams, the components

of the built up section, the slab and the steel section, are interconnected with shear studs that are spaced uniformly

along the length of a simply

CASE C

CASE A

CASE B

supported span. Plastic concepts

Connectors at Ends

No Connectors

Fully Connected

are used to determine the number

P

P

P/2

P/2

of stud connectors so relative

movement (slip) will occur

dd

d d

between the slab and the steel

d d

section. The maximum slip will

occur at the ends of the span. The

slip does not affect the ultimate L

beam strength but does affect the

deflection. However, for columns

K = 1.0

K = 1.0

K = 0.5

slip between components will

have a major effect on strength

since column stability and

P/2

P/2

P

P

strength depend on the deflection

2E bd3

2E bd3

2E bd3

Pcr =

Pcr =

Pcr =

6 L2

6 L2

6L2

member.

Figure 9. Effect of Connection Details on Built-Up Column Behavior

This section will focus on the effect of slip on built up column stability. The slip between the components is resisted

by the end connectors and the intermediate fasteners. The relative importance of these two groups of connectors is

illustrated in Fig. 9, which shows the buckled shape and strength for three connection scenarios between two

rectangular sections of width b and depth d. Case A has no connectors; slip occurs all along the length and the two

cross sections buckle as independent Euler columns. A single connector at mid height will merely force both

members to buckle in the same direction. In Case B the two members are fully connected; no slip occurs and the

buckling strength is four times greater than Case A. Plane sections remain plane along the entire length. Case C has

only connectors at the ends where slip is prevented. Slip occurs at all other locations along the length. Surprisingly

the column buckles into an S-shape at a load that is the same as Case B which is fully connected. Case C is hard to

comprehend so a model was constructed based on the solution of this problem given by Johnston, 1971.

The model in Fig. 10 shows two columns with the same cross section. Both are constructed from two similar

rectangular sections separated by spacer bars that are pin-connected. The spacers merely force the two components

to buckle in the same direction. The only difference between the two columns is their end connections. The column

on the left has two shear plates that prevent slip at the ends, the other column has no end connections. As illustrated

in Fig. 10, the model follows the theory exactly. The column with the end plates carries four times the load of the

pinned column and buckles in an S-shape. In both cases the column ends are free to rotate.

Further evidence (Sherman and Yura, 1998) of the importance of preventing slip at the ends is given in Fig. 11,

which show the results of tests on 2L5x3 x double angles with long legs back-to-back separated by a gusset

plate connection with two A325 bolts at each end. There are varying numbers of intermediate bolts evenly spaced

with a small spacer plate or hardened washers maintaining the inch separation. The columns were 12.5 ft. long

and loaded through knife edges at the ends to provide a pinned condition. The end bolts were either fully-tightened

to the minimum specified tension, snug tightened or fully tightened but with a grease placed on the contact surfaces

to reduce the slip coefficient. The intermediate bolts were either fully tightened or snug. The test showed that the

number of intermediate fasteners have little effect on the buckling strength of double angle columns. The

intermediate fasteners function mainly to prevent buckling of the components between fasteners. The three cases

where slip could occur at the ends showed a capacity of about 30 kips, equivalent to the strength of two single angle

sections. When slip was prevented, the 50 kip load corresponded to the strength of a fully connected built-up

section. The AISC-LRFD Specification requires that the column slenderness ratio be modified for the spacing of

intermediate fasteners. The AISC capacity is shown by the horizontal bars in Fig. 11. For a small number of

intermediate snug fasteners, the AISC Specification is very conservative. For two or more intermediate fasteners,

the AISC reduction is unimportant. The tests indicate that for double angles, it is unnecessary to use the modified

slenderness ratio. A minimum of two intermediate fasteners should be recommended to avoid the need of modifying

the stiffness. It is only important to prevent slip at the ends and to use the full cross section properties in

determining the column strength.

TEST RESULTS

Ends - Interm.Conn

60

Tight - Snug

Tight - Tight

50

Tight,Lubed - Snug

40

Snug - Snug

Snug - Snug Washers

30

AISC

20

10

0

0

Winter (1960) established that braces for columns and beams were required to have a minimum stiffness and a

minimum strength. A violation of either of these two requirements will result in a reduction in the buckling strength

of the main member. Brace stiffness and strength provisions have been adopted in the 3rd Edition of the AISCLRFD Specification. Strength requirements are directly related to the magnitude of the initial out-of-straightness or

plumbness. Stiffness requirements are generally a function of load, not E, and are valid in the elastic and inelastic

regions of member behavior (Gil 1999, Ales 1993). Prior to the adoption of bracing requirements in the AISC

Specification, engineers were on their own, usually adhering to past practice associated with only a strength

requirement such as a brace force equal to two percent of the column load.

The bracing model shown in Fig. 12 demonstrates the importance of both brace stiffness and brace strength on

column strength. The objective of the demonstration is to provide sufficient strength and stiffness to a brace located

at mid-height so that the column can support a load corresponding to an unbraced length of one-half the total length;

i.e. the column buckles into an S-shape. When the horizontal member is attached at mid-height, a sliding support

can vary the stiffness of the brace. Figures 12(a) and (b) show a brace with inadequate stiffness and Fig. 12(c) one

with adequate stiffness. In both these instances, the brace strength was sufficient and did not control. Otherwise,

the horizontal brace would have a permanent deformation when the column is unloaded. Note the difference in

applied load for these two cases.

(b)

(c)

(a)

evaluated using dead weights. A 1%

brace force is required to force the

column into an S-shape.

The

suspended weight (a few fishing

sinkers) forces the column against a

bolt stop that impose an initial outof-straightness. The 1% provision is

derived for an initial out-ofstraightness of L/500. When the

brace force exceeds the dead weight,

the column will move off the support

as shown in Fig. 13(a). When the

suspended weights were equal to 1%

of the maximum column load, the

column buckled into an S-shape

shape shown in Fig. 13(b).

(a)

(b)

10

The model shows that both brace stiffness and strength can affect column strength. In the 3rd Edition AISC-LRFD

Manual of Steel Construction, the following statement appears on page 2-13.

Stability Bracing

Approximate Method

As an alternative to the more rigorous provisions for stability bracing in the LRFD Specification Section

C3, the historically approximate and generally conservative procedure of designing the bracing element for

a required strength equal to two percent of the factored compressive force in the braced member will

normally suffice.

This statement is contrary to published theory and physical experiments.

SUMMARY

It is important to take the time to establish clearly why a structure is deflecting more than expected. Lack of

stability means lack of stiffness. In many instances, disasters could have been avoided if excessive deflections were

taken more seriously. Bracing details are important. A very small brace permits a main member to support a load

much larger than for an unbraced member. Larger factors-of-safety should be used for bracing members because

they are more important than the main member itself. The P concept suggests that a few stiff members (lightly

loaded elastic members) can effectively stabilize a system with highly stressed columns. The importance of

preventing slip at the ends of built-up members has been demonstrated.

REFERENCES

AISC-SSRC (2003), Lecture 4-Frame Stability, from seminar entitled Basic Design for Stability

Ales, J.M. and Yura, J.A.(1993), "Bracing Design for Inelastic Structures," Proceedings, SSRC Conference "Is Your

Structure Suitably Braced?," Milwaukee, WI, April 6-7.

Canada Department of Railways and Canals ( 1919), The Quebec Bridge Over the St. Lawrence River Near the City

of Quebec on the Line of the Canadian National Railways, Report No.1, Ottawa

Committee to Investigate the Hartford Coliseum Roof Collapse (1978), Report to Court of Common Council, City of

Hartford, Connecticut, July 13,1978, 73p.

Gil, H. and Yura, J. A.(1999), Bracing Requirements of Inelastic Columns, Journal of Constructional Steel

Research, Vol. 51,No. 1, July, pp.1-19.

Hall, D.H. (1981), Proposed Steel Column Strength Criteria, ASCE J of the Structural Division, Vol. 107, No.

ST4, April, pp 649-670

Johnston, B. G. (1971), Spaced Steel Columns, ASCE J. of the Structural Division, Vol. 97, No. ST5, May, p 1465

McQuire, W.(1968), Steel Structures, Prentice-Hall International, Inc., London

Sherman, D. R. and Yura, J. A.(1998), Bolted Double-Angle Compression Members, Journal of Constructional

Steel Research, Vol. 46, n1-3, pp. 470-471, Proc, 2nd World Conference on Steel in Construction (CD-ROM),

Paper197, San Sebastian, Spain, May11-13

Tarkov, J. (1986), Quebec Bridge: A Disaster in the Making, Invention & Technology, American Heritage, Vol. 1,

No. 4, pp 10-17

Weidlinger Associates (2003), Miscellaneous Forensic Evaluation of the Marcy Pedestrian Bridge, Final Report &

Appendices, Aug, 61 p

Winter, G.(1960), Lateral Bracing of Columns and Beams, ASCE Transactions, Vol. 125, pp 809-825

Yura, J.A.(1971), The Effective Length of Columns in Unbraced Frames, Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 8, No.

2, pp. 37-42, April 1971. Discussions: Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 40-48, Jan. 1972 and. Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 167-168, October

1972.

11

- Steel MagazzineTransféré parrodriguez.gaytan
- DIN 976.pdfTransféré parLuciano Fontes
- Design of Timber Structures 1-2015Transféré parCharlene Andolana Cuabo
- Belt Truss as Lateral Load Resisting Structural System for Tall Building: A ReviewTransféré parIJSTE
- The Network Arch 19-08-2014Transféré parjitz1234
- New Microsoft Word Document (2)Transféré parfahimraiyan_ipo
- e6-139-05Transféré parAmmar A. Ali
- STEEL5( 39PAGES)Transféré parKristin Brienne Leander-Renomeron
- ColumnTransféré parDOMINIC
- civil engineering projectTransféré parrehenaparbin
- 5 Compression Members -1Transféré parnaresh
- Concrete Filled With High Strength Steel Box Column for Tall Building-behavior & DesignTransféré partaosye
- Aeronautic Component Optimization With Linear Buckling Criterion_final ( 2x Impressão)Transféré parJoao Campos
- Design of Columns-LESSON 10Transféré parAnand.5
- 1 Sem ME Civil(Structure)Transféré parAnonymous BoP7nnB
- ColumnTransféré parSabih Hashim Alzuhairy
- files-4-Lectures_Microsoft_PowerPoint_-_Ch2_Trusses.ppt.pdfTransféré parshankar
- PROPOSAL IRTDC Final.pdfTransféré parFarhan ファルハンサスケ
- Technical Memorandum WHOI 3 81Transféré parghsotyrider
- Step 9Transféré parFikrie Muhd
- MITRES2_002S10_lec122.pdfTransféré parSama Sama
- Structural Performance Evaluation of Floating PV Power Generation Structure SystemTransféré parKashif Attique
- Purlin From ForumTransféré parDhivaBoss
- Design of Long Span Steel Structures and Hangars..docxTransféré parSupri Olix
- Feasibility Study of Current Bicycle StandTransféré parChris
- Simulasi Ujian Akhir Semester GandaTransféré parDeni Kurniawan
- UnderstandingTransféré parsreedevi gummadi
- 77_Study.pdfTransféré parshivani
- Analysis of Buckling of Piles Fully Embedded in Ground According to Finite Element MethodTransféré parctlim88
- Stainless Steel in Fire Final Summary Report March 08Transféré partwinpixtwinpix

- Filipino Vernacular Terms Used in Constr and Architecture 2018Transféré parHarry King Avenido
- Ceiling TechnologyTransféré parpdf2004
- Tekla Joint MapTransféré parharislee
- Building Connstruction Understanding Construction Part Two Tom Bartsch.pptTransféré parnitsjn
- Carpentry Craft Man Ship GuideTransféré parjason_barnes4097
- Economics for Structural Steel Industrial BuildingsTransféré parthomas kilian
- Intro Load PathTransféré paranhnguyenhai
- Abet Format Syllabus - GCV401 - Structural Analysis - Rev 20180823Transféré parOec Eng
- buildings-02-00456Transféré parDipesh Chandra Barua
- Buckling CourseWorkTransféré parGimhan Jayasiri
- CHAPTER 1 (1)Transféré parMohamed Wayrah
- Residential Building Design Using Excel Program - FinalTransféré parGeneva Latorre
- 8. Structural Drawings.pptxTransféré parbeverlynjoan
- ansys poradnik cz.3.docxTransféré parjuhy
- Truss-Post End Connection (GB)Transféré parVlad Mos
- Connection TypesTransféré parSamji Vp
- ReferencesTransféré parDharmendra Prajapati
- Trib Are a Examples 2Transféré parjohn
- Purlin and Roof DesignTransféré parMohamed Nk
- Question Bank - 2markTransféré parong0625
- roof truss sample manual calculation.docTransféré parmichellem329
- Solver Vinnakota Cap 11Transféré parStephanie Méndez
- 1-4_2-PD6687-2Transféré parTharmalingam Vijay
- Analysis and Design of Structural Steel Members and ComponentTransféré paraboalhassan
- Project 1 Fettuccini Truss Bridge ReportTransféré parKah Leong
- StructuralTransféré parLanie Mae Villareal
- BCEE 452-ENGR 6511-Ch 1Transféré parDaniel
- TUTORIALS 2010 MechanicsTransféré paraogu
- Bridge.docxTransféré parPaul Belen
- Moment Connection HSS Knife Plate 1-24-15Transféré parPierre du Lioncourt

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.