the table omega: rebus

[p38sp]

Members
I have now subscribed to the forum so excuse me if I make some mistakes.
Can I ask you where I can find the tables regarding the choice of the omega coefficient to amplify the load of a single steel element?
on the norms un 10011 are the tables 7iia, 7iib,......(which I have) under the paragraph of the composite rods (7.2.3.) therefore I consider these valid only if I have mated profiles (is correct what is now said? ).
Looking at a booklet of a scaffolding I found that the omega coeff to amplify the vertical load of the mount has been denounced from the 4.ii.c p.m. of the cnr-uni table 10011/73.... but these I do not find them.
on the booklet is indicated the value of omega=2.64 (for a lambda=140) that if you want to compare it with table 7iic does not correspond as I read an omega=3.11
Someone can make me a little clear.
all the reasoning done also applies to the classic steel mount (e.g. hea.., heb., upn) loaded with tip: where do I find the omega tables that allow me the amplification of the load?
I hope I've been clear.
thanks for the answers
further question: Are scaffolding hot or cold-formed? What curve do you have to assign them to or what?

 

[gil]

Welcome

Unfortunately I can't help you, it's a topic I don't know. But it seems to me that the rules you refer to are a little old.
Have you looked at what the ntc08 says and later updates? Why don't you use the current norms instead of the decayed ones?

 

[Legs]

Members
on the norms un 10011 are the tables 7iia, 7iib,......(which I have) under the paragraph of the composite rods (7.2.3.) therefore I consider these valid only if I have mated profiles (is correct what is now said? ).
Looking at a booklet of a scaffolding I found that the omega coeff to amplify the vertical load of the mount has been denounced from the 4.ii.c p.m. of the cnr-uni table 10011/73.... but these I do not find them.
on the booklet is indicated the value of omega=2.64 (for a lambda=140) that if you want to compare it with table 7iic does not correspond as I read an omega=3.11

Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent report.
I also have here the cnr10011 (but my version is 1988) and it is not true that the tables you refer to only the composite sections.
indeed, they are divided into various voices. for a rolled and/or welded steel profile ex fe360 (now indicated with s235) you must refer to table 7-iia. to the mechanical slenderness value of 140 corresponds omega=2,65.
in the booklet is indicated 2,64 maybe because it was obtained from a calculation and there is a small approximation.
probably have been wrong in the indication of the reference table.
So nothing wrong, it seems correct to me the value of the booklet.