CAEP VS CAE buckling

[JPNR87]

Hi,

as we know angle profiles CAE and CAEP have buckling directions difference (local axis).

Have some one good view how to determine buckling bracing for those two types?

1. For example with CAE profiles in my case buckling around y axis for chord is blocked. And this model looks fair

2. Changing profiles to CAEP local axes are u-u and v-v. So I cant say that  along y nor Z  axis is blocked because it's somewhere in the "middle". I would say that for chords both directions are blocked in nodes.

buckling restricting according to axis

Have someone ideas to confirm or deny or to add something?

Thanks!

[Artur.Kosakowski]

Hi @JPNR87

Assuming you don't use Robot what would you do for hand calculations?

[JPNR87]

I would say that for chord in nodes CAEP case along both directions buckling is blocked. 

you?

Thanks for answer

[Artur.Kosakowski]

Hi @JPNR87

On the contrary I'd assume the opposite. As IMHO the buckling out of the truss plane is not restrained at all it doesn't matter if there is any restrain in its plane as IY and IZ is the same. I can't see ant reason why under the compression the while truss not buckle in the vertical direction.

If I managed to answer your question(s) press the Accept as Solution button please. This will help other users to find solution(s) much faster. Thank you.

[l_santos4EBSZ]

Sorry, I didn’t understand clearly

So, for bracing, should we use CAE or CAEP?

thank you

[Simau]

@l_santos4EBSZ 

According to what was said in previous messages, each one has its own opinion.

To stay in security i would use CAEP for all angles section as soon as some bars would be in compresion.

 For parameters, I will use the biggest buckling length in local z direction of CAEP.

For bars in tension there is no difference between CAE an CAEP as buckling effect will not be taken into account by Robot .