![]() The idea with monopoles is that you rely on your 2nd order analysis to give you amplified moments (due to the presence of axial force) and then you check the monopole's flexural capacity. only individual members in a lattice type pole. My belief is that this was done because you don't check compressive strength for monopoles. But, does it also apply to compressive strength? Section 4.5.4.1 of addendum 2 seems to be missing the reference to table 4-8 for polygonal tubes! That seems to indicate that this is really related to the efective yield stress for flexure (to be used in section 4.7.4). The ASCE 48 equations should be extended in the compact regions limited to a nominal strength equal to the yield strength times the plastic section modulus "Z". ![]() this is not the case with the TIA-222-G standard (200 to 1000 year returns) as demonstrated for circular shapes. ![]() The additional strength capacity was not used by ASCE 48 ias the strength levels in ASCE48 were intended to be limited to first yield to avoid permanent deformation under the NESC loadign conditions (50 year return extreme wind condition). ![]() This is supported by the test data used for the equations in table 4-8. I found some meeting minutes from a 2006 committee meeting which said the following:Ĭompact Polygonal Shapes and Effective Stress Equations, Table 4-8:Ĭompact polygonal shapes should be treated in a similar manner as compact circular shapes and be able to develop their full plastic moment capacity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |