Custom Search

Lyari Expressway (South Bound) Inaugurated

Posted on February 11, 2008
Filed Under >Owais Mughal, Economy & Development, Environment
33 Comments
Total Views: 53260

Share

Owais Mughal

The famous Lyari Expressway project is now open. Atleast in half. The proposed project called for a 4-lane expressway on either side (2-ln each side) of Lyari river. The South bound corridor is now complete and it was inaugurated today (Feb 11, 2008). It is however, not open for general public yet, which is expected to happen in next few days.

The total length of Lyari Expressway, North and South bound combined, is 32.155 km. Out of this, the 16 km long Southern Corridor was inaugurated today. This Southern Corridor consists of 8 bridges and 2 interchanges located at the Gharibabad Graveyard on Sir Shah Suleman Road and Love Lane Bridge in Garden West.




Following is the Route Map of the Project. Note the location of two interchanges (in red ovals) besides the entrance and exit terminal points. The highway marked as RCD highway (N25) is actually part of the Karachi Northern Bypass (M10).

National Highway Authority (NHA)‘s website shows the project start date of Lyari Expressway as May 11, 2002 and completion date of June 30, 2008. NHA website also shows work on Northern Corridor 59% complete and Southern Corridor 100% complete.

Cost of Lyari Expressway project was originally estimated at Rs 5.1 billion but now it is expected to cost Rs. 8.227 billion when completed. Another 5 billion rupees have been spent in the resettlement of the people, which brings the total cost of the project to approximately Rs 13 billion.

Following is the satellite image of Lyari river as it flows from Sohrab Goth and falls into the Arabian Sea. I’ve marked the river and Expressway corridor in green.

Channeling of Lyari River:

According to one study, Lyari river is the main contributor to an estimated amount of 200 million Imperial gallons (909.218 million litres) of raw sewage that enters the Arabian Sea. If you are one of those, who remember the haphazard channel of sewage filled Lyari River, then you will certainly appreciate following photos which show the channeling effort of Lyari River. Also note the flood control embankments being built on either side of the river.

History Leading to Lyari Expressway Project:

Historically Lyari river used to be a source of perennial water which flowed through it during rainy season. An unconfirmed source cites that until 1950s, the river held clean water and fish, with farming activities on its banks. Over the years it has become the largest sewage and rain water dump from all over the city of Karachi. In 1977 there were severe rains and flooding in the city and almost 200 people lost their lives because of Lyari river flooding. This was the first time that WAPDA planners thought of taming the river by building embankments on both sides and taming down the water channel. This plan was never implemented.

Karachi also had a famous master plan released in 1975-76 and called Karachi Master Plan 1975-1985, which called for building a Northern and a Southern bypass to connect Karachi port with Super Highway (M9) and National Highway (N5) respectively. Actually Northern Bypass was proposed even earlier in 1973 as part of Karachi Development Program (1973-1985) as a semi ring road.

In 1989, Lyari Expressway (32 km long) was proposed as an alternative to much longer Northern Bypass (57 km) .

In 1993 there were severe floods in Lyari River again which made the planners think of a multipurpose project of Lyari expressway plus the flood control channeling of Lyari River.

Following two photos show how dangerously close people used to live next to the non-flood water levels of Lyari river. Any rise in water level due to rains caused havoc in these localities. You can note a small wall in the photo to the left to keep water away but ofcourse this could never withstand a flash flood of monsoon season.

In 1996, opposition from people during the public hearings let the provincial government drop plans for building Lyari Expressway as large number of people were to be dislocated. Northern Bypass was considered more effective because it passes through mostly uninhabited area.

In June 2001, there was a change of heart and the government came up with the idea of building both the Northern Bypass (M10) and the Lyari Expressway together in the budget for the bypass alone.

Northern Bypass (M10) is now complete and functional since August 2007. On September 1, 2007 it had the tragedy of a portion of falling flyover on the lower level road.

Four more shots of the Lyari expressway, during its construction phase are given below:



Social Cost of Lyari Expressway:

By some estimates almost 250000 people are displaced as part of clearing-of-way for the Lyari Expressway project. Officially the construction of the Lyari Expressway required the demolition of 15,000 housing units and the displacement of 24,400 families living along the Lyari River. This is thought to be the largest urban demolition project for raod making in Pakistan.

Following two photos show the demolition phase of Lyari Expressway Project.

To resettle the displaced people, the government launched the Lyari Expressway Resettlement Project (LERP). As part of this project, people were given a compensation package that included an 80 square yard plot of land on the outskirts of Karachi and Rs 50,000 for construction. The lands were allotted in newly developed suburbs in Hawk’s Bay, Taiser Town and Baldia Town.

Following Photo shows concrete pouring phase of Lyari Expressway Flyover bridge the Super Highway (M9) at Sohrab Goth.

On a positive note, it moved people from unplanned localities at the banks of Lyari river and put them in planned localities with Schools, Parks, Utilties and for Karachi’s standards comparitively greener localities (with planned tree plantatation) but on a negative note, the 80 sq yard plots given to affectees are too small and may not be equivalent to what these people had to give-up. So there is definitely a social/human cost associated to this mega proect.

The People vs Lyari Expressway:

The controversy surrounding Lyari Expressway was the subject of a 2002 short documentary film titled "The People vs. Lyari Expressway". The film was written and directed by Maheen Zia and was screened at the Kara Film Festival in Karachi.

Schematic Diagram of Lyari Expressway Project:

Following is the project schematics diagram

Master Plan Map Image:

Following is the image of the original master plan.

Following photo of Lyari Expressway is from August 16, 2008. Photo credits belong to Faisal Rafiq.

""

I took following photo on Dec 14th, 2009. It shows Lyari Expressway looking north from Sohrab Goth.

""

Following photo was taken around Dec 20, 2009. It shows the ramp and toll booth to Lyari Expressway at Sir Suleman Shah Road Interchange.

""

What About North Bound Lyari Expressway ?

Not all encroachments have been removed from the North bound corridor of Lyari Expressway. After the encroachments are removed, Right of Way (RoW) needs to be given to National Highway Authority (NHA) which is responsible to finish the project. As written above, NHA’s website shows 59% work complete on North Bound lanes.

Previous ATP Posts on similar Topics:

1. Peshawar-Islamabad Motorway M1 is now open for traffic
2. RFID based E-toll system introduced on Pakistan Motorways
3. Bridge collapse on Karachi Northern Bypass (M10)
4. Lahore Rapid Mass Transit Rail Project.
5. The Bridges of Pakistan

References:

1. The Daily Times
2. National Highway Authority, Pakistan.
3. skyscrapercity.com
4. Resettlement site emerging as a model town
5. Sprawling Township emerges in Hawkes Bay: Lyari Expressway
affectees

6. Lyari Expressway- A land scam?
7. Lyari Expressway: Concerns and Proposals of the Urban Resource Center: by Arif Hasan: Architect and Planning Consultant, Karachi
8. Frontier Works Organization
9. Over 96 percent work on South Bound portion of Lyari Expressway completed in Pakistan
10. Google Earth

Seismic changes to NFPA 13 Part 2: major technical changes in the 2007 edition of NFPA 13 relate to seismic protection of automatic sprinkler systems.(National Fire Protection Association)

PM Engineer July 1, 2009 | Dubay, Christian There have been significant changes to NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, between the 2002 edition and the 2007 edition. This article series addresses the major technical changes that are contained within the 2007 edition of NFPA 13 relating to seismic protection of automatic sprinkler systems.

The 2007 edition made specific seismic changes in nine specific areas. The first five of these areas were discussed in detail in Part 1, (Jan. 2009 pme, pages 27-30), with the final text of NFPA 13 included in grey (versus black) text. In Part 2, we discuss areas six and seven.

6. Horizontal Seismic Loads The determination of horizontal seismic loads has been modified in four main areas. First when determining the weight of the system being braced (Wp) the weight shall be 1.15 times the weight of the water filled pipe to account for system components such as valves, hangers and fittings (Section 9.3.5.6.1). Secondly, the horizontal force due to seismic loads (Fpw) acting on the brace at working stress levels, is now a function of Ss for the building location as described in the annex. The ground motion parameter Ss which is defined by NFPA 13, Section 3.11.7 is the Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion of 0.2 sec Spectral Response Acceleration (5 percent of Critical Damping), Site Class B for the site. Ss is then utilized in Table 9.3.5.6.2 (page 26) to relate to a value of Cp, which is a new seismic coefficient defined in Section 3.11.6 as the combination of the ground motion and seismic response factors from ASCE 7, for the equation Fpw = CpWp (Section 9.3.5.6.2). Thirdly, where the Authority Having Jurisdiction does not specify a horizontal seismic load the force is determined utilizing a Cp = 0.5 (Section 9.3.5.6.3), which relates to 1/2Wp and is consistent with previous editions of NFPA 13. Finally, the zone of influence for each lateral brace includes all the branch lines and mains tributary to the brace, unless the branch lines are provided with bracing (Section 9.3.5.6.4).

9.3.5.6 * Horizontal Seismic Loads. (1) 9.3.5.6.1 * The horizontal seismic load for the braces shall be as determined in 9.3.5.6.4 or 9.3.5.6.5, or as required by the authority having jurisdiction. The weight of the system being braced (Wp) shall be taken as 1.15 times the weight of the water-filled piping. (See A.9.3.5.6.1.) (1) A.9.3.5.6.1 The factors used in the computation of the horizontal seismic load should be available from several sources, including the project architect or structural engineer or the Authority Having Jurisdiction. In addition, the ground motion parameter Ss, is available using maps or software developed by the U.S. Geological Survey. The approach presented in NFPA 13 is compatible with the requirements of SEI/ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, which provides the seismic requirements for model building codes. Sprinkler systems are emergency systems and as such should be designed for an importance factor (Ip) of 1.5. Seismic load equations allow the reduction of the seismic force by a component response modification factor (Rp) that reflects the ductility of the system; systems where braced piping is primarily joined by threaded fittings should be considered less ductile than systems where braced piping is joined by welded or mechanical type fittings. In addition, a factor [alpha], is used to account for dynamic amplification of nonstructural systems supported by structures. Currently, steel piping systems typically used for fire sprinklers are assigned an Rp factor of 4.5 and an [alpha], factor of 2.5. (1) 9.3.5.6.2 The horizontal force, Fpw, acting on the brace shall be taken as Fpw = CpWp , where Cp is the seismic coefficient selected in Table 9.3.5.6.2 utilizing the short period response parameter Ss . The value of Ss used in Table 9.3.5.6.2 shall be obtained from the AHJ or from seismic hazard maps. Linear interpolation shall be permitted to be used for intermediate values of Ss. (1) See “Table 9.3.5.6.2 Seismic Coefficient Table” at left. (1) 9.3.5.6.3 * Where the Authority Having Jurisdiction does not specify the horizontal seismic load, the horizontal seismic force acting on the braces shall be determined as specified in 9.3.5.6.2 with Cp = 0.5.1 A.9.3.5.6.3 Ss is a measure of earthquake shaking intensity. Ss shall be taken as the Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion for 0.2 sec Spectral Response Acceleration (5 percent of critical damping), Site Class B. The data are available from the AHJ, or in the United States, from maps developed by the U.S. Geological Survey. All that is required to get Ss is the latitude and longitude of the project site. The horizontal force factor was given as Fp in earlier editions of NFPA 13. It has been changed to Fpw, to clearly indicate that it is a working, not an ultimate, load. In model building codes, Fp is used to denote the strength design level load. (1) 9.3.5.6.4 * The zone of influence for lateral braces shall include all branch lines and mains tributary to the brace, except branch lines that are provided with longitudinal bracing. (1) A.9.3.5.6.4 The zones of influence do not have to be symmetrically based on brace spacing. It is the intent of NFPA 13 that the chosen zone of influence be the worst-case load scenario. (1) 9.3.5.6.5 The zone of influence for longitudinal braces shall include all mains tributary to the brace. (1) 7. Maximum Allowable Brace Loads See “Table 9.3.5.8.8(a) Maximum Horizontal Loads for Sway Braces with l/r = 100 for Steel Braces with Fy = 36 ksi” on page 29. (1) See “Table 9.3.5.8.8(b) Maximum Horizontal Loads for Sway Braces with l/r = 200 for Steel Braces with Fy = 36 ksi” on page 29. (1) References Christian Dubay, P.E. | National Fire Protection Association Series Summary: A Quick Review of Part 1 This sidebar is intended to provide pme readers with a better context in which to read Part 2 of this article series. Part 1 appeared in the Jan. 2009 issue and covered five specific areas (listed below) of the 2007 edition of NFPA 13. Among the highlights:

1. Flexible Sprinkler Hose Fittings While on the surface the new requirements for the use and installation of flexible sprinkler hose fittings does not appear to have an impact on seismic design, the committee provided additional annex material addressing the potential benefit of utilizing flexible sprinkler hose fittings in seismic areas due to their ability in providing the necessary deflection under seismic conditions.

2. Obstructions to Sprinklers Where bracing and restraint is added to mains and now in some cases to branch lines, there is a possibility that if either the brace or the restraint is located too close to the sprinkler it will obstruct the discharge of the sprinkler and, therefore, the obstruction rules of Chapter 8 apply in specific cases.

3. Flexible Couplings Two specific areas requiring flexible couplings were added or modified to address flexible couplings for floor tie-ins and for drops to hose lines, rack sprinklers, and mezzanines. Section 9.3.2.3(2) was modified to address the location of flexible couplings where a floor tie-in does not incorporate a riser and where the tie-in is horizontal only.

4. Seismic Separation Assemblies For the 2007 edition the committee has expanded its requirements and allowances for seismic separation assemblies. Figure A.9.3.3(b) was added to address an example of the new allowance for the use of flexible piping in lieu of a series of pipe, fittings and couplings. see here force factor reviews

5. Lateral Sway Bracing The biggest area of change for the 2007 edition involves the spacing criteria of lateral braces. These changes were needed to ensure that NFPA 13 met or exceeded the design requirements of ASCE 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.

Christian Dubay, P.E., is vice president and chief engineer at the National Fire Protection Association and the editor of the Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook. Dubay holds a bachelor of science degree in Fire Protection Engineering from the University of Maryland. He is a registered professional engineer in the State of Connecticut and is a member of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.

Table 9.3.5.6.2 Seismic Coefficient Table

[S.sub.s] [C.sub.p]

0.33 or less 0.31 0.50 0.40 0.75 0.43 0.95 0.50 1.00 0.52 1.25 0.60 1.50 0.71 2.00 0.95 2.40 1.14 3.00 1.43

Table 9.3.5.8.3 (a) Maximum Horizontal Loads for Sway Braces with Er = 100 for Steel Braces with [F.sub.f] = 36 ksl

Least Brace Shape Area Radian of and Size ([in.sup.2]) Gyration r (in.)

Pipe Schedule 40

1 in. 0.094 0.421 1 1/4 in. 0.669 0.54 1 1/2 in. 0.799 0.623 2 in. 1.07 0.787

Angles

1 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 0.688 0.292 2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 0.938 0.391 2 1/2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 1.06 0.424 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 1.39 0.491 3 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 1.31 0.528 3 x 3 x 1/4 in. 1.44 0.592

Rods (all thread)

1/4 in. 0.07 0.075 1/2 in. 0.129 0.101 1/4 in. 0.207 0.128 3/4 in. 0.300 0.157 1/2 in. 0.429 0.185

Rod (threaded at ends only)

1/14 in. 0.11 0.094 1/2 in. 0.196 0.125 1/4 in. 0.307 0.156 1/4 in. 0.442 0.188 1/2 in. 0.601 0.219

Floats

1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 0.375 0.0722 2 x 1/4 in. 0.5 0.0722 2 x 1/4 in. 0.75 0.1082

Brace Shape Maximum Length [E.sub.f] = 100 and Size m ft in.

Pipe Schedule 40

1 in. 35 3 ft 6 in.

1 1/4 in. 45 4 ft 6 in.

1 1/2 in. 52 5 ft 2 in.

2 in. 66 6 ft 6 in.

Angles

1 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 24 2 ft 5 in.

2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 33 3 ft 3 in.

2 1/2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 35 3 ft 6 in.

2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 41 4 ft 1 in.

3 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 44 4 ft 4 in.

3 x 3 x 1/4 in. 49 4 ft 11 in.

Rods (all thread)

1/4 in. 0.6 0 ft 7 in.

1/2 in. 0.8 0 ft 10 in.

1/4 in. 1.1 1 ft 0 in.

3/4 in. 1.3 1 ft 3 in.

1/2 in. 1.5 1 ft 6 in.

Rod (threaded at ends only)

1/14 in. 0.8 0 ft 9 in.

1/2 in. 1.0 1 ft 0 in.

1/4 in. 1.3 1 ft 3 in.

1/4 in. 1.6 1 ft 6 in.

1/2 in. 1.8 1 ft 9 in.

Floats

1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 0.6 0 ft 7 in.

2 x 1/4 in. 0.6 0 ft 7 in.

2 x 1/4 in. 0.9 0 ft 10 in.

Min. Horizontal Load (b)

Brace Angle

Brace Shape 30″ to 44″ 45″ to 59″ 60″ to 90″ and Size Angle from Angle from Angle from Vertical Vertical Vertical

Pipe Schedule 40

1 in. 4,263 6,029 7,184 1 1/4 in. 5,774 8,165 10,000 1 1/2 in. 6,396 9,752 11,943 2 in. 9,234 13,059 15,994

Angles

1 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 5,938 8,397 10,284 2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 1,095 11,448 14,021 2 1/2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 9,148 12,937 15,845 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 10,270 14,524 17,788 3 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 11,306 15,989 19,582 3 x 3 x 1/4 in. 12,428 17,575 21,525

Rods (all thread)

1/4 in. 504 854 1,046 1/2 in. 1,113 1,574 1,928 1/4 in. 1,786 2,526 3,094 3/4 in. 2,667 3,771 4,619 1/2 in. 3,702 5,236 6,413 forcefactorreviewsnow.com force factor reviews

Rod (threaded at ends only)

1/14 in. 949 1,343 1,644 1/2 in. 1,692 2,392 2,930 1/4 in. 2,649 3,347 4,589 1/4 in. 3,515 5,395 6,607 1/2 in. 5,187 7,335 5,984

Floats

1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 3,236 4,577 5,605 2 x 1/4 in. 4,315 6,102 7,474 2 x 1/4 in. 6,473 9,154 11,211

Table 9.3.5.8(a) Maximum Horizontal Loads for Sway Braces with Wr = 100 for Steel Braces with Fy = 5 ksl ([dagger])

Table 9.3.5.8.8(b) Maximum Horizontal Loads for Sway Braces with Wr = 200 for Steel Braces [F.sub.y] = 36 ksl

Least Brace Shape Area Radian of and Size ([in.sup.2]) Gyration r (in.)

Pipe Schedule 40

1 in. 0.494 0.421 1 1/4 in. 0.669 0.54 1 1/2 in. 0.799 0.623 2 in. 1.07 0.787

Angles

1 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 0.668 0.292 2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 0.938 0.391 2 1/2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 1.06 0.424 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 1.19 0.491 3 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 1.31 0.528 3 x 3 x 1/4 in. 1.44 0.592

Rods (all thread)

1/4 in. 0.07 0.075 1/2 in. 0.129 0.101 1/4 in. 0.207 0.128 3/4 in. 0.309 0.157 1/2 in. 0.429 0.185

Rod (threaded at ends only)

1/14 in. 0.11 0.094 1/2 in. 0.196 0.125 1/4 in. 0.307 0.156 1/4 in. 0.442 0.188 1/2 in. 0.601 0.289

Floats

1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 0.375 0.0722 2 x 1/4 in. 0.5 0.0722 2 x 1/4 in. 0.75 0.1082

Brace Shape Maximum Length [E.sub.f] = 100 and Size m ft in.

Pipe Schedule 40

1 in. 7.0 7 ft 0 in.

1 1/4 in. 9.0 9 ft 0 in.

1 1/2 in. 10.4 10 ft 4 in.

2 in. 13.1 13 ft 1 in.

Angles

1 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 4.9 4 ft 10 in.

2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 6.5 6 ft 6 in.

2 1/2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 7.1 7 ft 0 in.

2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 8.2 8 ft 2 in.

3 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 8.8 8 ft 9 in.

3 x 3 x 1/4 in. 9.9 9 ft 10 in.

Rods (all thread)

1/4 in. 1.2 1 ft 2 in.

1/2 in. 1.7 1 ft 8 in.

1/4 in. 2.1 2 ft 1 in.

3/4 in. 2.6 2 ft 7 in.

1/2 in. 3.1 3 ft 0 in.

Rod (threaded at ends only)

1/14 in. 1.6 1 ft 6 in.

1/2 in. 2.1 2 ft 0 in.

1/4 in. 2.6 2 ft 7 in.

1/4 in. 3.1 3 ft 1 in.

1/2 in. 3.6 3 ft 7 in.

Floats

1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 1.2 1 ft 2 in.

2 x 1/4 in. 1.2 1 ft 2 in.

2 x 1/4 in. 1.8 1 ft 9 in.

Min. Horizontal Load (b)

Brace Angle

Brace Shape 30″ to 44″ 45″ to 59″ 60″ to 90″ and Size Angle from Angle from Angle from Vertical Vertical Vertical

Pipe Schedule 40

1 in. 1227 1735 2124 1 1/4 in. 1661 2349 2877 1 1/2 in. 1984 2605 3436 2 in. 2657 3757 4601

Angles

1 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 1708 2406 2959 2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 2329 3294 4034 2 1/2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 2632 3722 4558 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 2995 4178 5117 3 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 3252 4600 5633 3 x 3 x 1/4 in. 3575 5056 6193

Rods (all thread)

1/4 in. 174 246 301 1/2 in. 320 453 555 1/4 in. 514 727 890 3/4 in. 767 1085 1329 1/2 in. 1065 1506 1845

Rod (threaded at ends only)

1/14 in. 273 286 473 1/2 in. 487 688 843 1/4 in. 762 1078 1320 1/4 in. 1097 1552 1901 1/2 in. 1492 2100 2585

Floats

1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 931 1317 1613 2 x 1/4 in. 1241 1756 2150 2 x 1/4 in. 1862 2673 3225

Table 9.3.5.8.8(b) Maximum Horizontal Loads for Sway Braces with Fr = 200 for Steel Braces with Fy = 36 ksl.

Braces with I/r = 300 for Steel Braces with [F.sub.y] = 36 ksl.

Least Brace Shape Area Radian of and Size ([in.sup.2]) Gyration r (in.)

Pipe Schedule 40

1 in. 0.494 0.421 1 1/4 in. 0.669 0.54 1 1/2 in. 0.799 0.623 2 in. 1.07 0.787

Angles

1 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 0.688 0.292 2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 0.938 0.391 2 1/2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 1.06 0.424 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 1.19 0.491 3 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 1.31 0.528 3 x 3 x 1/4 in. 1.44 0.592

Rods (all thread)

1/4 in. 0.07 0.075 1/2 in. 0.129 0.101 1/4 in. 0.207 0.128 3/4 in. 0.309 0.157 1/2 in. 0.429 0.185

Rod (threaded at ends only)

1/14 in. 0.11 0.094 1/2 in. 0.196 0.125 1/4 in. 0.307 0.156 1/4 in. 0.442 0.188 1/2 in. 0.601 0.219

Flats

1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 0.375 0.0722 2 x 1/4 in. 0.5 0.0722 2 x 1/4 in. 0.75 0.1082

Brace Shape Maximum Length [E.sub.f] = 100 and Size ft ft in.

Pipe Schedule 40

1 in. 10.5 10 ft 6 in.

1 1/4 in. 13.5 13 ft 6 in.

1 1/2 in. 15.6 15 ft 6 in.

2 in. 19.7 19 ft 8 in.

Angles

1 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 7.3 7 ft 3 in.

2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 9.8 9 ft 9 in.

2 1/2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 10.6 10 ft 7 in.

2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 12.3 12 ft 3 in.

3 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 13.2 13 ft 2 in.

3 x 3 x 1/4 in. 14.8 14 ft 9 in.

Rods (all thread)

1/4 in. 1.9 1 ft 10 in.

1/2 in. 2.5 2 ft 6 in.

1/4 in. 3.2 3 ft 2 in.

3/4 in. 3.9 3 ft 11 in.

1/2 in. 4.6 4 ft 7 in.

Rod (threaded at ends only)

1/14 in. 2.3 2 ft 4 in.

1/2 in. 3.1 3 ft 1 in.

1/4 in. 3.9 3 ft 10 in.

1/4 in. 4.7 4 ft 8 in.

1/2 in. 5.5 5 ft 5 in.

Flats

1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 1.8 1 ft 9 in.

2 x 1/4 in. 1.8 1 ft 9 in.

2 x 1/4 in. 2.7 2 ft 8 in.

Min. Horizontal Load (b)

Brace Angle

Brace Shape 30″ to 44″ 45″ to 59″ 60″ to 90″ and Size Angle from Angle from Angle from Vertical Vertical Vertical

Pipe Schedule 40

1 in. 545 771 944 1 1/4 in. 738 1044 1279 1 1/2 in. 882 1247 1579 2 in. 1181 1670

Angles

1 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 759 1074 1315 2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 1035 1464 1793 2 1/2 x 2 x 1/4 in. 1170 1654 2026 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 1313 1837 2274 3 x 2 1/2 x 1/4 in. 1446 2044 2504 3 x 3 x 1/4 in. 1589 2247 2752

Rods (all thread)

1/4 in. 77 109 134 1/2 in. 142 201 247 1/4 in. 228 323 396 3/4 in. 341 482 591 1/2 in. 473 669 820

Rod (threaded at ends only)

1/14 in. 121 172 210 1/2 in. 215 306 375 1/4 in. 339 479 587 1/4 in. 488 690 845 1/2 in. 663 938 1149

Flats

1 1/2 x 1/4 in. 414 585 717 2 x 1/4 in. 552 780 956 2 x 1/4 in. 828 1170 1433

Sway Braces with Wr = 300 for Steel Braces Fy = 36 ksl.

Dubay, Christian

33 comments posted

Comment Pages: [5] 4 3 2 1 » Show All

  1. June 13th, 2014 1:26 am

    Today, ԝhile I waѕ at work, mmy cousin stole my ɑpple ipd and
    tested too see iff it cann survive a 30 foot drop, just so
    shhe can be a youtube ѕensation. My iPad is nnow destroyed
    and sshe has 83 views. I know this is completely off topic but I hadd to shагe it with someone!

    My homepage;sports online betting vegas

Comment Pages: [5] 4 3 2 1 » Show All



Have Your Say (Bol, magar piyar say)

Please respect the ATP Comment Policy.

Keep comments on topic; no personal attacks; don't submit indecent, inflammatory, slanderous, uncivil or irrelevant comments; flamers and trolls are not welcome; inappropriate comments will be removed or edited.

If you won't say it to someone's face, then don't say it here!

Readers who want to use a URL should please use the TINY URL program.

Thanks, and keep the comments coming!