07-06-2010, 09:40 AM
DamirDz wrote:-
...but i don't seem to recall that the eurocode requires the reduction of I. I would appreciate it if someone would show me the section of the EC where it says to do so.
...
Comment:-
I think that you are absolutely correct. The issue of reduction or none reduction of the moment of inertia does not have anything to do with analysis at the ultimate limit state. I have never come about the provisions being mentioned by the proponents of this so-called reduction anywhere either in the code or in engineering literature. Since the deign of the beam and or column and or any other structural component at the ultimate limit state is being performed under same loading conditions, if we should follow this proposition or stipulation in the code (of which I had never come across) the modification of the I should apply to all the components and at last you will find out that you wasted time to achieve nothing. It will amount to dividing the whole component of an equation by say, 100, which will not give you any result different from that of the original. I had request the proponents of this clause to cite their sources but none was able to do that. So any one who still maintains that this so-called reduction in I is supported in any literature, let him please cite the article, paragraph and commas of the code or give reference to the literature from which he lifted this information. We are here and ready to learn.
Reagrds
Teddy
...but i don't seem to recall that the eurocode requires the reduction of I. I would appreciate it if someone would show me the section of the EC where it says to do so.
...
Comment:-
I think that you are absolutely correct. The issue of reduction or none reduction of the moment of inertia does not have anything to do with analysis at the ultimate limit state. I have never come about the provisions being mentioned by the proponents of this so-called reduction anywhere either in the code or in engineering literature. Since the deign of the beam and or column and or any other structural component at the ultimate limit state is being performed under same loading conditions, if we should follow this proposition or stipulation in the code (of which I had never come across) the modification of the I should apply to all the components and at last you will find out that you wasted time to achieve nothing. It will amount to dividing the whole component of an equation by say, 100, which will not give you any result different from that of the original. I had request the proponents of this clause to cite their sources but none was able to do that. So any one who still maintains that this so-called reduction in I is supported in any literature, let him please cite the article, paragraph and commas of the code or give reference to the literature from which he lifted this information. We are here and ready to learn.
Reagrds
Teddy