I can't thank enough for this great video , much appreciated !
@recebaga93824 жыл бұрын
thank you teacher, appreciate what you are doing, very valuable videos
@sabbirhasan36093 жыл бұрын
Respect. Great lecture. Well organized and easy to understand.
@bandilenkosi75414 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much Sir I have found this video very much helpful. a student from VUT 🙌
@arnoldbr84182 жыл бұрын
Nice, greetings from Brazil!
@firesun2 жыл бұрын
And greetings from South Africa :-)
@Bathna333 жыл бұрын
You. Are. Awesome!
@Salsaman2063 жыл бұрын
thanks a lot for the great explanation, luckily the Canadian Code shares the same equations but I can't seem to find the answer one of my questions, and I was hoping maybe you can help. for the check b) Overall Member Strength Check, if we have bi axial bending, should we calculate Cr based on the weak axis or the strong axis? i'm wondering what is the "r" value (radius of gyration) that is embedded in the Lambda formula. cheers,
@richard_walls3 жыл бұрын
The South African code states for the overall member strength check: "Cr is as defined in 13.3 (section for compressive resistance) with the value of K = 1, except that for uniaxial strong-axis bending, Cr = Crx". Hence, when there is bi-axial bending design the column as normal, but with K=1.0, meaning that either strong or weak axis bending could govern. [To be honest, I find the description a little ambiguous in the code.] Hope this helps.
@Salsaman2063 жыл бұрын
@@richard_walls thanks a lot for the reply Richard. I also believe we need to consider the weak axis if we have biaxial moments. This part of the code is one of the more mind recking sections. Hopefully we will get updates that clarify the approach and also fine tune the equations for more conservative design. As I’ve come to learn that using these equations sometimes lead to unsafe design, since a rigorous buckling analysis will prove that the critical buckling loads are lower than what the code calculates. Agains thanks a lot Richard.