Closure by Kishor C. Mehta,5 James R.

McDonald/
and Douglas A. Smith6

The suggested use of the conditional limit state method by the dis-
cussers is a welcome addition to the paper. It may be feasible to predict
wind damage using the concepts of load and resistance factor design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(LRFD) in the future. In LRFD procedures, variability of material strengths

along with other variabilities are taken into account using probability
distribution of functions. The writers have recommended use of nominal
material strength so that the procedure to predict wind damage can be
applied using current design practices without having to wait for de-
velopment and acceptance of LRFD by the profession. The procedures
to predict wind damage can be refined as more sophisticated reliability
based design procedures become available.
The writers of the discussion appear to have misunderstood the ap-
plicability of the procedures described in the paper. The procedures are
designed to predict wind damage prior to windstorm occurrences, not
post-disaster effects. Thus, this provides the opportunity to retrofit
buildings and eliminates weak links.
The writers reiterate their position that it is not practical or economical
to design ordinary buildings to prevent damage under extreme wind
conditions. Ordinary buildings should definitely be designed to prevent
injuries and fatalities to occupants and to mitigate damage. However,
designs to totally eliminate damage in hurricanes, cyclones and torna-
does are uneconomical.

UNIFORM ELEMENT MODELING OF TAPERED

FRAME MEMBERS*
Discussion by Krishnaiyengar Rajagopalan2

The author must be congratulated on his paper which goes into the
detailed derivation of one, two, and three segment uniform element
models for tapered frame members in static analysis. It may be noted
that such models can be found by energy principles concerning optimal
finite element geometry. Properties of such models in the static analysis
of axial force members (10) and beams (9) are well known. However care
must be exercised when using uniform element modeling for tapered
members in stability and dynamic analyses (8).
5
Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, Tex. 79409.
6
Design Engr., Southwestern Public Service Co., Amarillo, Tex.
"January, 1982, by Eryk Kosko (Paper 16809).
2
Sci., Struct. Engrg. Research Centre, Madras 600113 India.

1064

J. Struct. Eng. 1983.109:1064-1065.

 APPENDIX.—REFERENCES

8. Gallagher, R. H., and Lee, C. H., "Matrix Dynamic and Instability Analysis
with Non-Uniform Elements," International Journal of Numerical Methods in En-
gineering, Vol. 2, 1970, pp. 265-275.
9. Masur, E. F., "Some Remarks on the Optimal Choice of Finite Element Grids,"
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 14,1978, pp 237-
248.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10. Rajagopalan, K., discussion of "Optimal Choice of Finite Element Grids," by

W. Prager, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 8, 1976
pp. 361-362.

Discussion by Stephen A. Ridlon, 3 M. ASCE

The author develops a procedure for handling tapered members a n d

states (pg. 246), "to the writer's knowledge, the subject has not b e e n
studied in the literature." The writer would like to point out that STRUDL
(12) allows for input of a variable cross section member without speci-
fying additional nodes. The MSC/NASTRAN program (14) has h a d a
CBEAM element that permits variable properties along a beam. Martin
(13) and Gere (11) developed this topic a n u m b e r of years ago in their
books.

APPENDIX.—REFERENCES

11. Gere, J., and Weaver, W., "Analysis of Framed Structures," D. Van Nos-
trand Co., New York, N.Y., 1965, pp. 418-421.
12. ICES-STRUDL II, Engineering User's Manual, Vol. 1 Frame Analysis, Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., Nov., 1968, pp. 72-74.
13. Martin, H. C , Introduction to Matrix Methods of Structural Analysis, McGraw
Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., 1966, pp. 136-144.
14. MSC/NASTRAN User's Manual, MacNeal Schwendler Corp., Pasadena, Calif.,
May, 1980, pp. 2.4-42c and 42d.

Closure by Eryk Kosko4

The writer wishes to express his appreciation to both discussers for

their interest in the paper a n d for their comments.
Rajagopalan notes that models s o m e w h a t akin to those developed in
the paper have been obtained by some authors w h o used energy prin-
ciples to optimize the representation. The writer's method does not in-
volve any optimization as it is capable of directly giving a model fully
equivalent to the tapered m e m b e r (as far as forces and displacements at
the end nodes are concerned). The writer entirely agrees with Rajago-
palan's warning o n the use of this type of modeling in stability or dy-
namic analyses.
'Systems Analyst II, Production and Engrg., Support-Information Services,
Bechtel Power Corp., San Francisco, Calif.
4
Engrg. Consultant, 2106 Woodcrest Rd., Ottawa, Canada K1H 6H8.
1065

J. Struct. Eng. 1983.109:1064-1065.