Slenderness control under load reversal: A tension member that may be subjected to stress reversal due to wind (i.e., may experience compression at times) should have its slenderness ratio limited to which maximum value?

Introduction / Context:Tension members designed primarily for tension can sometimes experience compression under wind or seismic load combinations. Codes place a stricter slenderness limit in such cases to avoid excessive flexural buckling susceptibility.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Member is usually in tension but may see compression due to load reversal.
• Slenderness ratio is L/r (effective length over radius of gyration).

Concept / Approach:Where reversal of stress is possible, the member must satisfy not only tensile limit states but also the serviceability and stability requirements applicable to compression. A commonly used upper limit for such “tension members liable to reversal” is about 180 to provide adequate stiffness against buckling in compression.

Step-by-Step Solution:Recognize potential compression under wind.Adopt conservative slenderness limit to control buckling risk.Select 180 as the maximum recommended value.

Verification / Alternative check:Historic working stress provisions and many exam references cite 180 as the limit for tension members subject to reversal; pure tension members may be allowed higher limits for appearance or vibration only.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• 200–350: too slender, offering inadequate compression stability under reversal.

Common Pitfalls:

• Treating potentially reversible members as pure tension without checking buckling.

Final Answer:180