My response interspersed below.
> From: "T. Boene" <t_boene@yahoo.com>
> What are simple ties by the way? Did you mean pin-pin connection for the
> bracing members?
My assumption was that the ties proposed by Conrad were simple pin-pin ties
perpendicular to two main members. I commend Conrad for offering alternate
suggestions.
> I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Such perpendicular, pin-pin ties do not improve the capacity of the
individual principal members if each principal member is identical in form
and load.
> From: "Conrad Harrison" <sch.tectonic@bigpond.com>
> Whilst Paul may be correct about the two beams displacing in unison:
> implying a half sine wave buckle for the full span. The battened column
> analogy indicates that such will be at a higher axial load, than for the
> beams acting individually.
Unless the battens, perpendicular to each main member, have designed moment
connections at each main member (e.g. Vierendeel truss), the capacity of a 2
member assembly is only 2x the capacity of each member individually. In the
case of semi-rigid batten connections the design standards are clear about
limitations and conditions and the benefits can be inconsequential.
> Galambos discusses lean on effects for columns and beams
Lean-on effects acknowledged, explicitly, w.r.t. beams with pin-pin
perpendicular ties.
I believe that we have a common understanding of these principles.
> More over then goes on to design bracing, which is similar to the bridging we
> use in Australia for coldformed girts/purlins.
> Which is where I think the issue is. Most of the photos I have seen of
> bridging of purlins in the US, show bracing which appears little better than
> sag rods. So my alternative proposal of providing bridging to the beams
> wasn't a good one. Divided by a common language.
There may be language issues but I don't believe that it is related to
bridging/bracing. The use of channels, or similar, as bracing between cold
formed purlins is also common in North America.
Regards
Paul
--
Paul Ransom, P.Eng.
ph 905 639-9628
fax 905 639-3866
ad026@hwcn.org
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********